This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-44
entitled 'Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Actions Needed to
Clarify Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness for Evacuations'
which was released on December 22, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
December 2006:
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations:
Actions Needed to Clarify Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness
for Evacuations:
GAO-07-44:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-44, a report to congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study:
During the evacuation of New Orleans in response to Hurricane Katrina
in 2005, many of those who did not own a vehicle and could not evacuate
were among the over 1,300 people who died. This raised questions about
how well state and local governments, primarily responsible for
disaster planning, integrate transportation-disadvantaged populations
into such planning. GAO assessed the challenges and barriers state and
local officials face; how prepared these governments are and steps they
are taking to address challenges and barriers; and federal efforts to
provide evacuation assistance. GAO reviewed evacuation plans;
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Transportation
(DOT), and other studies; and interviewed officials in five major city
and four state governments.
What GAO Found:
State and local governments face evacuation challenges in identifying
and locating transportation-disadvantaged populations, determining
their needs, and providing for their transportation. These populations
are diverse and constantly changing, and information on their location
is often not readily available. In addition, these populations’
evacuation needs vary widely; some require basic transportation while
others need accessible equipment, such as buses with chair lifts. Legal
and social barriers impede addressing these evacuation challenges. For
example, transportation providers may be unwilling to provide
evacuation assistance because of liability concerns.
State and local governments are generally not well prepared—in terms of
planning, training, and conducting exercises—to evacuate transportation-
disadvantaged populations, but some have begun to address challenges
and barriers. For example, DHS reported in June 2006 that only about 10
percent of state and about 12 percent of urban area emergency plans it
reviewed adequately addressed evacuating these populations.
Furthermore, in one of five major cities GAO visited, officials
believed that few residents would require evacuation assistance despite
the U.S. Census reporting 16.5 percent of car-less households in that
major city. DHS also found that most states and urban areas
significantly underestimated the advance planning and coordination
required to effectively address the needs of persons with disabilities.
Steps being taken by some such governments include collaboration with
social service and transportation providers and transportation planning
organizations—some of which are DOT grantees and stakeholders—to
determine transportation needs and develop agreements for emergency use
of drivers and vehicles.
The federal government provides evacuation assistance to state and
local governments, but gaps in this assistance have hindered many of
these governments’ ability to sufficiently prepare for evacuations.
This includes the lack of any specific requirement to plan, train, and
conduct exercises for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged
populations as well as gaps in the usefulness of DHS’s guidance.
Although federal law requires that state and local governments with
mass evacuation plans incorporate special needs populations into their
plans, this requirement does not necessarily ensure the incorporation
of all transportation-disadvantaged populations. Additionally, while
DHS has made improvements to an online portal for sharing related
information, this information remains difficult to access because of
poor search and organizational functions. Moreover, although the
federal government can provide evacuation assistance when state and
local governments are overwhelmed, the federal government is not
prepared to do so. Amendments to the Stafford Act in October 2006
affirmed that FEMA (an agency within DHS) is responsible for leading
and coordinating evacuation assistance. DHS has not yet clarified, in
the National Response Plan, the lead, coordinating, or supporting
agencies in such cases.
What GAO Recommends:
DHS should clarify federal agencies’ roles and responsibilities for
providing evacuation assistance when state and local governments are
overwhelmed. DHS should require state and local evacuation preparedness
for transportation-disadvantaged populations and improve information to
assist these governments. DOT should encourage its grant recipients to
share information to assist in evacuation preparedness for these
populations. DOT and DHS agreed to consider our recommendations, and
DHS stated it has partly implemented some of them.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-44].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Kate Siggerud at (202)
512-2834 or SiggerudK@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Challenges and Barriers Exist in Evacuation Preparedness for
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations:
State and Local Governments Are Generally Not Well Prepared to Evacuate
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations, but Some Have Taken Steps to
Improve Preparedness:
While the Federal Government Provides Some Evacuation Assistance, Gaps
Remain:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
GAO Comments:
Appendix III: GAO's Observations on Federal Proposed Recommendations
and Initial Conclusions:
Appendix IV: Other Federal Initiatives Related to Evacuating
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Table:
Table 1: GAO's Observations on Federal Recommendations and Initial
Conclusions Addressing Evacuation Planning for Transportation-
Disadvantaged Populations:
Figures:
Figure 1: Challenges in Evacuating Transportation-Disadvantaged
Populations:
Figure 2: Major Barriers to Addressing Challenges in Evacuating
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations:
Abbreviations:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 22, 2006:
Congressional Committees:
The evacuation of New Orleans in response to Hurricane Katrina was
considered relatively successful for people with their own vehicles;
approximately 1 million people evacuated Louisiana prior to
landfall.[Footnote 1] In contrast, about 100,000 people were not
evacuated prior to the storm--many of whom lacked access to a vehicle.
Hurricane Katrina ultimately resulted in over 1,300 deaths. Among those
who could not evacuate were some of society's most vulnerable
populations: the elderly, low-income individuals, and persons with
disabilities.[Footnote 2] These populations often lack the ability to
provide for their own transportation and may also have difficulty
accessing conventional public transportation. As a result, evacuating
these "transportation-disadvantaged" populations during emergencies has
become an important topic of public policy discussion.[Footnote 3]
Evacuations of varying scales are common in the United States and can
be triggered by a variety of events, including natural disasters such
as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, wildfires, and terrorist attacks like
those committed on September 11, 2001. In fact, emergency evacuations
of more than 1,000 people occur more than three times a month. While
evacuation is only one option in response to an emergency, it is
complex and contains several critical components, including
transportation, shelter, supplies, and security, among others. Each of
these components is itself complex and often interrelated to
transportation. Those who, by choice or circumstance, do not have
access to a personal vehicle or are precluded from driving may require
evacuation assistance during emergencies. The 2000 U.S. Census
indicates that the population categories we have previously defined as
transportation-disadvantaged--the elderly, low-income individuals, and
persons with disabilities--comprise a large segment of the country's
total population (now over 300 million). For example, Census data
indicated that, in 2000, 12 percent of Americans were age 65 and over,
12 percent were living below the poverty line, and 23 percent had a
disability.[Footnote 4] However, the transportation-disadvantaged not
only include vulnerable populations, but all those who are car-less
during an emergency. In 2000, the top 10 car-less cities had between 29
and 56 percent of households without a vehicle. However, people who
require transportation assistance in an evacuation may be an even
larger group because, in an emergency, anyone without immediate access
to transportation may require assistance.
State and local governments are primarily responsible for managing
responses to disasters. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) establishes a disaster
management framework for state and local governments[Footnote 5] and
indicates that disasters should be managed at the lowest possible
governmental level. As the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
reaffirmed in July 2006,[Footnote 6] this approach also applies to
evacuations whereby state and local officials may suggest or require
the evacuation of residents from homes and communities before certain
catastrophes occur using the authority set out in state laws and local
ordinances. The federal government provides assistance to state and
local governments in their evacuation preparedness, including
requirements, funding, and guidance and technical guidance. If state
and local governments are overwhelmed by a catastrophic disaster, the
federal government can also provide evacuation assistance. For example,
the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Defense
(DOD) worked with state and local officials to conduct evacuations
during Hurricane Katrina. Other entities that may be available to
assist state and local governments in preparing for evacuations include
social service agencies, nonprofit organizations, public transportation
providers (such as transit agencies) and private transportation
providers (such as ambulance and bus companies), and regional planning
organizations--also known as metropolitan planning organizations--which
collect transportation and transit data as part of their involvement in
planning highway and transit investments. Some of these entities
receive DOT grants for programs that provide transportation for the
elderly, low-income individuals, persons with disabilities, and other
transportation-disadvantaged populations, among other
activities.[Footnote 7] The federal government's plan for disaster
response is the DHS National Response Plan.
Reports by the White House,[Footnote 8] Senate,[Footnote 9] and other
federal entities studied federal, state, and local evacuation
preparedness and response to Hurricane Katrina and issued related
recommendations. The Congress mandated that reviews and assessments be
conducted in response to concerns raised by Hurricane Katrina. As a
result, DHS issued the Nationwide Plan Review Phase I and II Reports, a
comprehensive assessment of catastrophic planning, in all 50 states and
in 75 of the largest urban areas (February and June 2006).[Footnote 10]
In addition, DOT issued the Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan
Evaluation: A Report to Congress, a review of hurricane evacuation
plans of five states and 58 counties and parishes on the Gulf Coast, in
June 2006.[Footnote 11] Because of this broad-based congressional
interest in concerns raised by Hurricane Katrina, we assessed issues
surrounding the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations
under the Comptroller General's authority, which allows him to conduct
evaluations on his own initiative.[Footnote 12] In May 2006, we
reported on preliminary observations from our work.[Footnote 13] To
complete our assessment, we examined (1) the challenges state and local
governments face in preparing for the evacuation of transportation-
disadvantaged populations and the barriers these governments confront
in addressing such challenges; (2) how prepared state and local
governments are to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged populations,
and what steps the governments are taking to address challenges
associated with preparing for the evacuation of these populations; and
(3) the extent to which the federal government (a) has provided
assistance to state and local governments' efforts to prepare for the
evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations and (b) is
responsible for providing evacuation assistance when state and local
governments are overwhelmed by a catastrophic disaster.
To address these questions, we conducted literature and document
reviews of federal, state, and local emergency plans; activity reports
issued after Hurricane Katrina and other recent disasters; studies
conducted by the federal government, experts, national associations,
and organizations that represent transportation-disadvantaged
populations and transportation providers; and related laws and proposed
legislation. We interviewed federal officials from DOT, DHS, Health and
Human Services, and DOD, in addition to experts in the field of
emergency preparedness. We conducted site visits to five major cities:
Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana;
Buffalo, New York; and Washington, D.C.[Footnote 14] We selected these
cities based on several factors, including large concentrations of car-
less, elderly, disabled, and low-income populations (according to the
2000 U.S. Census); a medium or high overall vulnerability to hazards;
and transportation ridership. At these locations, we interviewed local
emergency management, public safety, and transit and transportation
agency officials; transportation planners and representatives of
advocacy groups for the elderly and persons with disabilities. We also
interviewed state emergency management and transportation agency
officials at the four state capitals for the cities we visited:
Sacramento, California; Tallahassee, Florida; Baton Rouge, Louisiana;
and Albany, New York. We issued a report in July 2006 on the evacuation
of health facilities, including hospitals and nursing homes.[Footnote
15] As such, this report does not address the evacuation of those who
are under the care of these health facilities. In addition, aside from
transportation, this report does not address other key considerations
in evacuating these populations, such as shelter, security, food and
water, and other associated issues.
We conducted our review from December 2005 through December 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. (See
app. I for additional information on our scope and methodology.)
Results in Brief:
When preparing for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged
populations, state and local emergency management officials face
challenges in identifying and locating these populations, determining
their transportation needs, and providing for their transportation. For
instance, when preparing evacuation plans, it is difficult for
officials to identify transportation-disadvantaged populations because
they are large, diverse, and constantly changing. In addition, locating
transportation-disadvantaged populations is a challenge for state and
local officials because information on their locations has not been or
cannot be collected, is not centrally compiled, or has not been
traditionally shared with officials responsible for preparing to
evacuate these populations. Determining the evacuation transportation
needs of these populations is a challenge because the needs of such
populations vary--some require little assistance beyond basic
transportation, while others may require transportation that is
accessible to those with mobility impairments (such as buses with
wheelchair lifts) and medical assistance from the home to the shelter.
Additionally, officials face challenges in providing for the evacuation
transportation of these populations, such as acquiring the appropriate
vehicles and other equipment, employing the professionals (such as
drivers) necessary to carry out evacuations, and providing relevant
training to those professionals, including how to move persons with
disabilities in and out of vehicles. For example, 48 percent of
respondents to DHS's Nationwide Plan Review stated that they needed to
improve their use of all available transportation modes. State and
local officials also confront legal and social barriers in addressing
these evacuation challenges for transportation-disadvantaged
populations. One legal barrier is officials' concern about obtaining
client medical information from transportation providers that is used
to service clients. Although officials would use this information in
evacuation preparedness efforts, privacy issues remain. Another legal
barrier is that public and private sector transportation providers--for
example, those who transport persons with disabilities, "Meals on
Wheels" programs for the elderly, and job access services for low-
income individuals--may be dissuaded, along with volunteers, from
providing evacuation assistance in an emergency because of liability
concerns. An example of this concern is the possibility of being sued
for damages if an evacuee becomes injured while boarding a bus.
Further, social barriers, which can affect the willingness of any
population to evacuate, may make transportation-disadvantaged
populations even less likely to accept assistance in evacuating. This
can include concerns about a pet, one's health, or fear of losing
financial assets. It can also include the risk of adverse health
effects if these populations evacuate without their assistance devices,
such as life-support systems or service animals. (See fig. 1.)
Figure 1: Challenges in Evacuating Transportation-Disadvantaged
Populations:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Many state and local governments are generally not well prepared--that
is, they do not have the appropriate plans, training, and exercises--to
evacuate transportation-disadvantaged populations. DHS's Nationwide
Plan Review of emergency plans from all 50 states and 75 of the largest
urban areas reported that about 10 percent of states and about 12
percent of urban areas adequately addressed evacuating transportation-
disadvantaged populations. DOT's evaluation reported that most state
and local evacuation plans focus on highway evacuations by personal
vehicles. According to the Nationwide Plan Review and our site visits,
one reason for this lack of preparedness is the limited awareness or
understanding of the importance of preparing to evacuate transportation-
disadvantaged populations by many state and local governments.
Emergency management officials in one major city we visited after
Hurricane Katrina stated that few residents would require
transportation assistance and, therefore, these officials did not
believe that they needed to plan, train, and conduct exercises for the
evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations. However, 2000
U.S. Census data reported 16.5 percent of households in that major city
are car-less, and many of these households may not be able to self-
evacuate. While it is uncertain whether state and local governments'
ability to evacuate these populations would be successful--in part
because of limited training and conducting of exercises--we found that
some state and local governments we visited have taken steps to address
some of the evacuation preparedness challenges and related legal and
social barriers. These include the following:
* Identifying and locating transportation-disadvantaged populations:
One of the five major cities we visited conducted a disaster
preparedness survey of some of its transportation- disadvantaged
populations, and another has begun to develop computerized maps that
locate transportation-disadvantaged populations. However, while some
state and local entities (some of which are DOT grant recipients and
stakeholders) can provide information on how to identify and locate
transportation-disadvantaged populations, the five major cities and
four states we visited have generally not taken advantage of these
entities' information. (These entities include social service agencies;
nonprofit organizations; public and private sector transportation
providers for the elderly, low-income individuals, and persons with
disabilities; and metropolitan planning organizations, among others.)
* Determining needs and providing transportation: Two of the five major
cities we visited have involved state and local entities--such as
advocacy groups and social service transportation providers--in
planning efforts to make use of these entities' understanding of, and
experience with, the needs of transportation- disadvantaged
populations.
* Legal and social barriers: To help address legal barriers, four of
the five major cities we visited have developed memoranda of
understanding and mutual aid agreements for the use of vehicles and
drivers in an emergency; these contracts help address liability
concerns. To help overcome social barriers, two of the five major
cities we visited have established plans to evacuate and shelter pets
and ensured that evacuees can bring assistance devices, such as
wheelchairs and life-support systems.
The federal government has provided some evacuation preparedness
assistance to state and local governments for transportation-
disadvantaged populations, but gaps have hindered many of these
governments' ability to sufficiently prepare to address the complex
challenges and barriers they face. These gaps include the following:
* Requirements: Until October 2006, while federal law required that
emergency plans include an evacuation plan, there was no specific
requirement that the evacuation plan address how to transport those who
cannot self-evacuate.[Footnote 16] Federal law now requires that state
and local governments with mass evacuation plans incorporate special
needs populations into their plan. However, this requirement does not
necessarily ensure the incorporation of all transportation-
disadvantaged populations. This is because state and local governments
do not share a consistent definition of special needs populations, as
we found in the course of our review, and this term did not encompass
all transportation-disadvantaged populations which are important to
evacuation preparedness. In addition, a July 2005 report from the
National Council on Disability[Footnote 17] found little evidence that
DHS has encouraged state or local grant recipients to include
disability and access issues in their emergency preparedness efforts.
Changes in federal law from October 2006 will also further protect some
transportation-disadvantaged populations.
* Funding: Although DHS grants may be used by state and local
governments to plan, train, and conduct exercises for the evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations, officials from only two of
the five major cities and one state we visited had requested a DHS
grant for such purposes. These officials told us that such grants were
seldom used to prepare these populations for evacuation because these
officials believe DHS placed a greater emphasis on the procurement of
equipment (rather than planning) and on terrorism preparedness (as
opposed to preparedness for natural or other disasters). In addition,
DHS officials told us that they currently do not know how much of the
department's grant funds have been used, or are being used, by state
and local governments to prepare for the evacuation of transportation-
disadvantaged populations.
* Guidance and technical assistance: The primary federal guidance for
evacuation preparedness recommends planning for transportation-
disadvantaged populations, but does not provide any further details for
how to do so. As a result, state and local officials told us that
additional guidance on how to approach planning for these populations
would be helpful. About one-third of DHS's Nationwide Plan Review
respondents stated that they would like additional guidance in this
area. Further, while DHS has an online portal for sharing existing
emergency preparedness guidance, best practices, and other information--
its Lessons Learned Information Sharing online portal--information on
preparing to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged populations is
difficult to access because of poor search and organizational
functions. While several federal agencies, such as the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), coordinate technical assistance for
evacuations, such assistance is generally focused on self-evacuation.
While DHS and DOT have taken several actions in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina to improve the federal government's ability to
provide evacuation assistance when state and local governments are
overwhelmed by a catastrophic disaster, gaps remain. Although the
Stafford Act gives the federal government the authority to assist state
and local governments with evacuations and to respond in a catastrophic
disaster, the National Response Plan does not clarify the lead,
coordinating, and supporting agencies to provide evacuation assistance
for transportation-disadvantaged and other populations when state and
local governments are overwhelmed. The absence of lead, coordinating,
and supporting agencies for providing evacuation assistance was evident
in the federal response for New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. As
both the White House Homeland Security Council report and the Senate
Government Affairs and Homeland Security Committee report noted, the
federal government was not prepared to evacuate transportation-
disadvantaged populations, and this severely complicated and hampered
the federal response.[Footnote 18] Both reports recommended that DOT
develop plans to assist states and local governments overwhelmed by
catastrophic disasters, and that DHS and DOT work with other agencies
to develop the federal government's capability to conduct mass
evacuations. To remedy this, the White House report also recommended
that DOT be designated as the federal agency responsible for leading
and coordinating evacuations when state and local governments are
overwhelmed. Amendments to the Stafford Act from October 2006 clarified
the responsibility of FEMA (an agency within DHS) in leading and
coordinating evacuation assistance when state and local governments are
overwhelmed by a catastrophic disaster. In the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina, the federal government has taken several steps to improve its
ability to respond to a catastrophic disaster. For instance, during the
2006 hurricane season, the government provided additional evacuation
assistance to state and local governments. However, despite these
improvements, DHS has not yet clarified in the National Response Plan
which federal agencies are responsible for leading, coordinating, and
supporting evacuation assistance.
To improve the federal government's ability to assist state and local
governments in evacuating transportation-disadvantaged populations, we
are making several recommendations to DHS. We recommend, for instance,
that DHS clarify in the National Response Plan (as already stated in
federal law) that FEMA is the single federal agency responsible for
leading and coordinating evacuation assistance when state and local
governments are overwhelmed. We also recommend that DHS clarify the
supporting federal agencies' roles and responsibilities in providing
evacuation assistance. In addition, we are also recommending that DHS
use its authority under its various grant programs to require that all
state and local governments plan, train, and exercise for the
evacuation of these populations; develop additional preparedness
guidance and technical assistance; and improve its information sharing
online portal to encourage better evacuation preparedness for these
populations. We are making a recommendation to DOT that it encourage
its grant recipients and stakeholders, through guidance and outreach,
to share information that would assist emergency management and
transportation officials in identifying and locating as well as
determining the evacuation needs of and providing transportation for
these populations.
We provided a draft of this report to DHS and DOT for comment. We
received written comments from DHS and oral comments from DOT
officials, including the National Response Program Manager, Office of
Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response, Office of the
Secretary. DOT officials generally agreed with the information
contained in our report, and both DOT officials and DHS's letter stated
that they would consider our recommendations. DHS's letter also stated
that it has partly implemented some recommendations in our draft
report, including improvements to its Lessons Learned Information
Sharing portal. We recognize that DHS has made improvements to this
portal, but some of the issues we previously identified, particularly
regarding its limited search functions, remain. We therefore revised
our recommendation to recognize DHS's efforts, but retained the
recommendation to reflect the need for continued improvement. DHS's
letter also noted, in contrast to an earlier discussion we had with DHS
officials, that DHS is the single agency responsible for leading and
coordinating evacuation support to the states, and that this
responsibility was emphasized by amendments to the Stafford Act in
October 2006. We therefore modified our draft as appropriate and
retained our recommendation that DHS clarify the lead, coordinating,
and supporting federal agencies to provide evacuation assistance and
these agencies' responsibilities in the National Response Plan. DHS's
letter raised a number of other concerns, including how we
characterized its role and responsibilities, and how we characterized
the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina, which we have addressed in
the report as appropriate. In addition, both DHS and DOT officials
offered technical and clarifying comments which we incorporated.
Background:
State and local governments are primarily responsible for carrying out
evacuations. However, if these governments become overwhelmed by a
catastrophic disaster, the federal government can provide essential
support, such as evacuation assistance for transportation-
disadvantaged and other populations. Such support would require
adequate preparation on the part of the federal government.
The Stafford Act outlines the framework for state and local governments
to obtain federal support in response to a disaster. First, a governor
must submit a request to the President in order for the President to
declare a federal disaster. Once the declaration is granted, the state
can request specific assistance from FEMA (part of DHS), such as
physical assets, personnel, funding, and technical assistance, among
others. While the President can declare a disaster without a request
from a governor, this does not frequently occur. The Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 amended sections of the
Stafford Act whereby the President can provide accelerated federal
assistance and support where necessary to save lives absent a specific
request from a governor and can direct any federal agency to provide
assistance to state and local governments in support of "precautionary
evacuations." DHS's role is to coordinate federal resources used in
disaster response, including evacuations. DHS created the National
Response Plan in 2004 to create a comprehensive "all-hazards" approach
to enhance the ability of the United States to manage domestic
incidents. Under the National Response Plan, DOT is the lead and
coordinating federal agency for transportation in a disaster. DOT is
primarily responsible for coordinating the provision of federal and
civil transportation services, and the recovery, restoration, safety,
and security of the transportation infrastructure. However, with
respect to evacuations, DOT is only responsible for providing technical
assistance in evacuation planning to other federal agencies as well as
state and local governments.
The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 also included
numerous provisions to help strengthen federal, state, and local
evacuation preparedness for some transportation-disadvantaged
populations. Among these provisions are: the establishment of the
National Advisory Council to advise FEMA on all aspects of emergency
management that will include disability and other special needs
representatives; the institution of a DHS disability coordinator to
assist in emergency preparedness for persons with disabilities; the
creation of the National Training Program and the National Exercise
Program which are designed to address the unique requirements of
special needs populations; and a requirement that federal agencies
develop operational plans to respond effectively to disasters, which
must address support of state and local governments in conducting mass
evacuations, including transportation and provisions for populations
with special needs.
To facilitate evacuation preparedness, state and local entities not
traditionally involved in emergency management can provide assistance-
-such as information or vehicles--that would be helpful in state and
local evacuation-preparedness efforts for transportation-disadvantaged
populations. Some such entities receive DOT grants to provide
transportation for the elderly, low-income individuals, persons with
disabilities, and other transportation-disadvantaged populations. These
include social service agencies, nonprofit organizations, and public
and private sector transportation providers that coordinate the daily
transportation of the elderly, low-income individuals, and persons with
disabilities, to provide meals or transportation to and from jobs,
medical appointments, and other activities. Finally, as a condition for
spending federal highway or transit funds in urbanized areas, federal
highway and transit statutes require metropolitan planning
organizations to plan, program, and coordinate federal highway and
transit investments. To carry out these activities, metropolitan
planning organizations collect transportation and transit data. In
March 2006, DOT issued guidance that recommends increased interaction
between some of its grant recipients and emergency management agencies,
among other entities.[Footnote 19]
To assess state and local evacuation preparedness, DHS's Nationwide
Plan Review examined the emergency plans of all 50 states and 75 of the
largest urban areas, including evacuation plans and annexes. DOT's
report to the Congress, entitled Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan
Evaluation: A Report to Congress also reviewed the evacuation plans of
many of the Gulf Coast region's counties and parishes. Both of these
federal reports also recommend that additional actions be taken to
address this issue.
There are many relevant federal entities and other entities that have
served as advocates for all or subsets of transportation-disadvantaged
populations. In the federal government, these include the National
Council on Disability; and interagency councils such as the
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, the Interagency
Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with
Disabilities, and the Interagency Council on Homelessness. Outside of
the federal government, relevant entities that have advocated for these
populations include the National Organization on Disability and the
American Association of Retired Persons, as well as transportation
groups such as the American Public Transportation Association, the
Community Transportation Association of America, and the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Challenges and Barriers Exist in Evacuation Preparedness for
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations:
State and local emergency management officials face several challenges
in preparing for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged
populations.[Footnote 20] For example, state and local officials face
difficulties in obtaining information about where transportation-
disadvantaged populations are located. These state and local officials
also face challenges in determining transportation-disadvantaged
populations' needs and providing for their transportation, such as
arranging for the use of appropriate equipment--buses and vans, for
example--to evacuate these populations. Additionally, officials
confront legal and social barriers in addressing these challenges, such
as concerns about being unable to obtain client medical information
from public or private sector transportation providers for use in
evacuation preparedness efforts because of privacy issues.
State and Local Governments Face Challenges in Identifying and Locating
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations, Determining Their Evacuation
Needs, and Providing for Their Transportation:
According to experts and officials, the challenges state and local
governments face in preparing for the evacuation of transportation-
disadvantaged populations include identifying and locating these
populations, determining their evacuation needs, and providing for
their transportation. It is difficult for state and local officials to
acquire the necessary information to both identify and locate
transportation-disadvantaged populations. The difficulty in identifying
these populations is due to the fact that these populations represent
large, diverse, and constantly changing groups, and that information
about them is not always readily available. Transportation-
disadvantaged populations can include numerous categories of people
without personal vehicles, such as the following:
* the elderly and persons with disabilities who have mobility
impairments that preclude them from driving, or who need medical
equipment in order to travel;
* low-income, homeless, or transient persons who do not have a
permanent residence or who do not own or have access to a personal
vehicle;
* children without an adult present during a disaster;
* tourists and commuters who are frequent users of public
transportation;
* those with limited English proficiency who tend to rely on public
transit more than English speakers;[Footnote 21] or:
* those who, for any other reason, do not own or have access to a
personal vehicle.
These populations can also include those who could be placed in, or
qualify for, more than one category among transportation-disadvantaged
populations, such as a person who has disabilities, is homeless, and
speaks limited English. Both the large number of these populations and
the potential for double counting can make identification difficult for
state and local officials. For example, although 52 percent of the Gulf
Coast jurisdictions evaluated in DOT's Catastrophic Hurricane
Evacuation Plan Evaluation had identified and located certain
transportation-disadvantaged populations, DOT reported that only three
jurisdictions had satisfactorily included provisions for schools and
day care centers, trailer parks and campgrounds, incarcerated and
transient individuals, and people with limited English proficiency in
their evacuation plans. Twenty-six percent of respondents to a question
in DHS's Nationwide Plan Review stated that they needed to improve
their identification of these populations. Fifteen percent of
respondents to this question indicated that a standard federal
definition of "transportation-disadvantaged" would facilitate their
planning.
Additionally, data on the location of transportation-disadvantaged
populations is not readily available because such data:
* have not previously been collected;
* cannot be collected because of the amount of time, staff, and other
resources required, or cannot be shared due to the preference of some
transportation-disadvantaged populations; for example, the established
registration system in one of the five major cities we visited had only
1400--or 0.3 percent--of the 462,000 people projected to need
evacuation assistance registered;
* are not compiled in a central location, but reside in separate
databases across numerous agencies, companies, or organizations,
including social service agencies, departments of motor vehicles, and
public and private sector transportation providers;
* are not traditionally shared with emergency management officials; for
example, a local metropolitan planning organization may collect data on
those who are transit-dependent, but may not have shared that
information with emergency management officials; or:
* cannot be shared with emergency officials due to privacy
restrictions; for example, social service agencies or nonprofit
organizations that regularly transport people during non-emergency
times and have information on clients' needs, but may not be able or
willing to share that data because of privacy concerns.
In addition to identifying and locating transportation-disadvantaged
populations, state and local governments also face the challenge of
determining the transportation needs of these populations and providing
for their transportation in an evacuation. To adequately prepare for
evacuating these populations, state and local officials need
information on the medical and transportation needs of each person in
addition to his or her location.[Footnote 22] These needs can vary
widely from those who can travel by themselves to a government-assisted
evacuation pick-up point to those who:
* need to be transported to a government-assisted evacuation pick-up
point, but do not require medical assistance or additional
transportation;
* live in group homes for persons with mental disabilities and may
require medical assistance, but not accessible transportation in an
evacuation; or:
* are medically frail but not hospitalized, and require acute medical
assistance as well as accessible transportation in an evacuation.
However, similar to the location data discussed earlier, it is
difficult for state and local officials to obtain information on the
transportation needs of these populations.
Another challenge that state and local officials face in preparing for
the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations is providing
for the transportation of these populations. This challenge includes
identifying the appropriate equipment and available modes of transport
as well as drivers and other needed professionals, providing training
to those drivers and other professionals, and communicating evacuation
information to the public. When preparing for an emergency, it can be
difficult for state and local officials to identify, arrange for the
use of, and determine the proper positioning of equipment needed to
transport these populations. The transportation needs of such
populations can range from persons who can be evacuated in school buses
and charter buses to the mobility-impaired who may require low floor
buses, wheelchair lift-equipped vans, and other accessible vehicles.
Because of the limited number of vehicles (accessible, multi-passenger,
or other) available among both public transportation providers (such as
transit agencies) and private transportation providers (such as
ambulance and bus companies), we found that emergency officials have to
spend additional time and resources arranging for transportation and
ensuring that those arrangements are coordinated before an evacuation
order is issued. Further, state and local governments also need to have
drivers and other professionals trained to operate the additional
vehicles they have acquired or to move persons with disabilities in and
out of vehicles; constraints already exist on the pool of potential
drivers. One example of a constrained resource is school bus drivers.
If an evacuation is ordered during the school day, the availability of
these drivers is severely limited because such drivers must first
transport the children home. In addition, drivers who provide
transportation to these populations during non-emergency times are
often not trained or contracted to provide emergency transportation for
these populations. Further, DOT's Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation
Plan Evaluation reported that, even in urban areas where additional
modes of transportation are available, few evacuation plans recognize
the potential role for intercity buses, trains, airplanes, and ferries.
These modes may be particularly important for persons who cannot
evacuate in personal vehicles. In response to a question in DHS's
Nationwide Plan Review on how well all available modes of
transportation are incorporated into evacuation plans, 48 percent of
respondents stated that plans needed to improve the use of available
modes of transport in evacuation planning. For example, one
jurisdiction is investigating using ferries and barges in evacuations.
Legal and Social Barriers to Addressing Transportation-Disadvantaged
Evacuation Challenges Confront State and Local Governments:
According to experts and officials, several legal and social barriers
confront state and local governments in addressing the aforementioned
challenges to evacuating transportation-disadvantaged populations. (See
fig. 2.)
Figure 2: Major Barriers to Addressing Challenges in Evacuating
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
To begin, state and local emergency management officials often face
legal barriers in obtaining data on the identification, location, or
the transportation needs of these populations. For example, 11 percent
of respondents to a DHS Nationwide Plan Review question on addressing
the needs of transportation-disadvantaged individuals before, during,
and after emergencies, stated that they were concerned about privacy
issues vis-ŕ-vis obtaining medical information from public or private
sector transportation providers about their clients that would help
officials in their evacuation preparedness. These providers could
include those that provide paratransit services for persons with
disabilities, "Meals on Wheels" programs for the elderly, and job
access services for low-income individuals. DOT's Catastrophic
Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation also cited privacy as a legal
barrier. Officials in three of the five major cities we visited in
addition to several federal officials with whom we spoke expressed
concern about what impact the Health Information Portability and
Accountability Act's Privacy Rule (the Privacy Rule) might have on
their ability to acquire such data. The act's Privacy Rule limits the
disclosure of individually identifiable health information by certain
entities or persons,[Footnote 23] but does not apply to transportation
providers unless they are also covered entities. Covered entities
include health care providers that conduct certain transactions in
electronic form, health-care clearinghouses, or health plans.[Footnote
24] Therefore, transportation providers that are not covered entities
would not be prohibited by the Privacy Rule from sharing such
information. However, misunderstanding about the act's Privacy Rule may
still be discouraging some from sharing this information. Additionally,
the general concerns that federal, state, and local officials have
expressed may extend to other privacy issues beyond the Privacy Rule,
such as potential contractual restrictions on Medicare and Medicaid
transportation providers.
Another example of a legal barrier is that some public or private
sector transportation providers are hesitant to evacuate these
populations because of concerns about reimbursement and liability.
State and local officials must often broker arrangements with
transportation providers in order to secure their services. However,
although these providers may be willing to help state and local
officials evacuate these populations, they will sometimes not do so
without legal agreements (such as memoranda of understanding or
contracts) that ensure reimbursement and that absolve the providers
from, or reduce liability in case of, an accident or injury. Creating
such an agreement usually requires legal representation as well as
additional liability insurance to protect against potential damage or
loss of property or life--all entailing monetary costs that state or
local governments and transportation providers may not be willing or
able to cover. Officials in one of the five major cities we visited
told us that additional liability insurance would be cost prohibitive
to obtain. We learned of a school district's reluctance to provide
vehicles for an evacuation without a legal agreement in one of the five
major cities we visited. This was largely due to the fact that the
school district had provided vehicles for an evacuation 12 years ago,
but FEMA has not yet fully reimbursed it. In one of the five major
cities and one of the four states we visited, we also learned of
agreements that have been pending for months (or had fallen through)
because of one party's liability concerns; these concerns could not be
adequately addressed by the state or local government.
An additional legal barrier for state and local officials we identified
relates to volunteers (such as nonprofit organizations or Good
Samaritans) who may also be dissuaded from providing evacuation
assistance in an emergency because of liability concerns.[Footnote 25]
Liability concerns may be even more of a barrier after Hurricane
Katrina, where volunteers saw that efforts to assist had unintentional
consequences, some of which resulted in lawsuits. For example,
Operation Brother's Keeper is a Red Cross program that connects
transportation-disadvantaged populations in local faith-based
congregations with voluntary providers of transportation in those
congregations. However, because of liability concerns in the provision
of such transportation, voluntary participants of the program are now
less willing to provide such transportation. Given that most state Good
Samaritan laws only apply to voluntary assistance provided in
circumstances that involve urgent medical care, transportation
providers may be held liable unless they are responding to an accident
scene or transporting a patient to a medical facility. Moreover, we
found that in one state, an addendum introduced to modify an existing
Good Samaritan law that would indemnify volunteers assisting in
evacuations did not pass. The absence of protection from potential
liability may also jeopardize efforts to enlist the assistance of
volunteers in evacuating the transportation-disadvantaged.
Furthermore, private transportation providers raise an additional legal
barrier for emergency officials, as these providers are hesitant to
offer evacuation assistance without formal sheltering arrangements
already in place. Sheltering arrangements ensure that such
transportation providers will not face unexpected complications once
they arrive at an evacuation destination. The providers' requirement
for sheltering arrangements highlights the fact that there are other
significant evacuation barriers for state and local governments which
extend beyond transportation. Experts who participated in an August
2006 panel we hosted on disaster housing assistance also described
similar sheltering challenges that were discussed earlier in this
report, such as challenges related to evacuation preparedness for
transportation-disadvantaged populations.[Footnote 26] For example,
some of the panelists discussed difficulty in obtaining information on
those who require sheltering, where they are located, and what their
sheltering needs are.[Footnote 27] Further, providing shelter for
transient populations, persons with disabilities, undocumented workers,
and those with limited English proficiency--many of whom are also
transportation-disadvantaged--is a complex task. Finally, as we will
discuss in the next section, sharing information to increase
preparedness needs improvement.
Social barriers that may affect evacuation efforts for all populations
may pose another major obstacle for state and local officials in
addressing challenges to evacuating these populations. While social
barriers extend beyond transportation-disadvantaged populations to
include many of those with access to a car, there are two reasons why
such barriers are particularly pronounced when state and local
officials prepare for the evacuation of such populations. First, as
opposed to those who have access to a personal vehicle, state and local
officials must be able to identify, locate, and determine the needs of
transportation-disadvantaged populations in order to evacuate them.
Second, the unwillingness to evacuate may be more widespread for the
car-less than other populations due to health, financial, or other
personal reasons that are related to their transportation-disadvantaged
status.
Even if the identification, location, or transportation needs data are
available for use by state and local officials, we learned that some
people may not want to disclose their information to these officials
because of concerns that sharing such data will adversely affect their:
* medical situation, whereby the privacy of their personal medical
information may be compromised;
* financial situation, such that their financial assets will be taken
or reduced; and:
* legal situation, such that they face consequences if, for example,
the government learns that they are undocumented workers. This barrier
may therefore prevent state and local governments from determining
which populations require evacuation transportation, where they are
located, and what their specific transportation needs are.
In addition, if state and local officials are able to prepare for the
evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations, these officials
still may confront the unwillingness of these populations to evacuate.
State and local officials have the difficult task of making evacuation
in advance of emergencies a better alternative for such populations
than sheltering in place. Even when the local or state government
issues a "mandatory" evacuation order, most state governments do not
have the authority to forcibly remove people from their homes or other
areas. Instead, state governments must decide whether they can, or are
willing to, voluntarily comply with the order. Further, even if
emergency management officials provide transportation to these
populations, they may not want to evacuate. One example of this
unwillingness to evacuate is that transportation- disadvantaged
populations may be concerned about being separated from family members
or caregivers upon whom they may depend for mobility or the provision
of medical services, or pets upon which they may rely for
companionship. In addition, shelters that receive evacuees may not be
set up to receive pets. Health concerns may also cause these
populations to be reluctant to evacuate. For example, some may be
reluctant or unable to leave without the medication or medical
equipment (e.g., oxygen tanks or dialysis machines) that are critical
to their well-being, or may be concerned that riding on an evacuation
vehicle would be extremely painful given their medical condition. In
addition, some may feel anxiety concerning the lack of information
about their destination, including whether they know someone there or
whether the destination will meet their needs.
These populations' unwillingness to evacuate can also stem from fear of
losing physical or financial assets. For example, some transportation-
disadvantaged populations have limited assets and do not feel safe
leaving whatever assets they do have--such as their home or belongings--
behind. This sentiment is exacerbated among those whose families have
lived in their homes for generations. Further, as was observed during
Hurricane Katrina, people may be unwilling to evacuate even if they do
have a car; they may not have money to pay for gas or are unwilling to
move to a place where their financial situation is less certain.
In attempting to address some of these social barriers by informing
transportation-disadvantaged populations about the benefits of
evacuating as opposed to sheltering in place, we found that
communicating with these populations can be difficult because these
populations often:
* are dispersed;
* may lack access to a radio or television;
* may not trust emergency announcements; or:
* may not be able to read or understand emergency materials or
announcements because of a disability, such as a cognitive or vision
impairment, or a lack of proficiency in English.[Footnote 28]
State and Local Governments Are Generally Not Well Prepared to Evacuate
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations, but Some Have Taken Steps to
Improve Preparedness:
Many state and local governments have gaps in their evacuation
preparedness--including planning, training, and conducting exercises--
for transportation-disadvantaged populations. Many of these governments
generally have limited awareness or understanding of the need to plan
for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations. These
governments believe that the risk of an evacuation is too low to
warrant planning for these populations. The governments also may have
focused only on planning for self-evacuations. In addition, while some
state and local governments may be aware of the need to prepare for
evacuating these populations, some have made little progress because of
insufficient planning details and little training for, and exercising
of, plans to evacuate the transportation- disadvantaged. Although some
state and local governments have taken steps to address challenges and
related barriers, the outcomes of these actions remain uncertain.
Many State and Local Governments Are Generally Not Well Prepared to
Evacuate Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations for Several Reasons:
Many states and localities are generally not well prepared--including
planning, training, and conducting exercises--to evacuate
transportation-disadvantaged populations. DHS's Nationwide Plan Review
of emergency operation plans from all 50 states and 75 of the largest
urban areas reported that 10 percent of state and 12 percent of urban
area evacuation planning documents sufficiently addressed assisting
those who would not be able to evacuate on their own. The review also
identified that such planning often consisted of little more than
public information campaigns designed to encourage residents to
evacuate by their own means. Even in hurricane-affected areas, most
evacuation plans do not fully address the needs of transportation-
disadvantaged populations. Most notably, DOT's Catastrophic Hurricane
Evacuation Plan Evaluation of 63 Gulf Coast jurisdictions (five states
and 58 counties and parishes) reported that, although plans generally
address the issue of evacuating those considered transportation-
disadvantaged, most do not have detailed information on how to identify
and locate populations, or determine their needs and secure
transportation and other resources required to carry out an evacuation.
The DHS review also reported that most state and urban area emergency
plans do not address evacuation for persons with disabilities and
overlook the availability of timely accessible transportation, such as
life-equipped vehicles, emergency communication methods, and the need
to keep people together with their family member, caregivers, or
medical equipment.
Limited awareness or understanding of the need to prepare for
evacuating transportation-disadvantaged populations has contributed to
inadequate preparedness on the part of state and local governments. The
Nationwide Plan Review stated that some state and local officials
believe they will never experience a catastrophic event. These
officials also believe that the evacuation of an entire city or state
is improbable and expressed concern that strengthening evacuation
preparedness standards, such as those related to planning, training,
and conducting exercises for the evacuation of transportation-
disadvantaged populations, could place unrealistic expectations on
communities with limited planning resources and few identified risks.
Officials at two of the five major cities we visited also told us that
the likelihood of disaster scenarios requiring mass evacuation is too
low to warrant spending limited funds on evacuation preparedness for
these populations. However, officials at one of the five major cities
we visited indicated that they are beginning to address evacuation
preparedness for transportation-disadvantaged populations in smaller
scale evacuations, which they thought would be more likely to occur.
Three of the five major cities and one of the four states we visited
have recognized, after Hurricane Katrina, the need to include
provisions in their evacuation plans for those without access to their
own transportation. Officials at one of these three major cities said
that they had not planned, trained, or conducted exercises for these
populations until late 2005, when DHS officials started to pose
questions for the Nationwide Plan Review. A senior emergency management
official in another one of those three major cities said that very few
residents are without personal vehicles. Therefore, officials in that
city focused plans, training, and exercises on evacuation by personal
vehicle. However, 2000 U.S. Census data reported that 16.5 percent of
households in that major city are car-less. DOT's evaluation reported
that most state and local evacuation plans focus on highway evacuations
by personal vehicles. We found another example of this focus on
personal vehicles in one of the four states we visited. This state
spent approximately $100,000 to develop and distribute an evacuation
pamphlet with self-preparedness information and a large evacuation map
on how those with access to a personal vehicle can use the highway
system to evacuate. Yet, the state did not conduct similar outreach for
those who require transportation assistance in evacuations.
DOT's review of evacuation plans in the Gulf Coast reported that,
although some jurisdictions have well-coordinated and tested plans, the
plans of many other jurisdictions do not include sufficient detail--nor
have staff been trained in or practiced with the plans to ensure
effective implementation. We observed a similar phenomenon during our
site visits. State and local governments vary in their level of
preparedness, with many not well prepared to evacuate transportation-
disadvantaged populations. For example, at the time of our review,
evacuation plans from two of the five major cities and three of the
four states we visited did not address the need to prepare for
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Further, DOT reported that
many Gulf Coast jurisdictions conduct disaster training and exercises
without involving key players such as transit agencies, state
departments of transportation, and school bus operators, even though
some evacuation plans rely on the use of vehicles from these entities.
In the past year, officials at three of the five major cities and three
of the four states we visited had conducted training or exercises that
addressed evacuating transportation-disadvantaged populations, or
included such populations in training or exercises. Government reports
on Hurricane Katrina highlighted the vulnerability of transportation-
disadvantaged populations, leading some emergency officials to
reevaluate their level of preparedness to evacuate these populations.
As a result, although state and local governments have generally
overlooked transportation-disadvantaged populations in the past, some
are now taking steps to overcome the challenges and barriers to
evacuating transportation-disadvantaged populations.
The lack of evacuation preparedness for transportation-disadvantaged
populations may reflect a larger problem in emergency planning, as the
DHS Nationwide Plan Review has highlighted. For example, DHS reported
that responses to its question on emergency planning actions being
taken to address transportation-disadvantaged populations received the
lowest percentage of sufficient responses from both state and urban
areas.[Footnote 29] Some respondents to this question indicated that
they were not sure how to proceed in planning for transportation-
disadvantaged populations or what was expected of them. For example,
one jurisdiction requested guidance to "understand what is expected of
them and ideas on how they can achieve it." Another respondent stated
they "are wondering what areas should be covered to ensure that a
response plan is adequate." In addition, DHS found no state or urban
area emergency plan annexes to be fully sufficient in addressing
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Such annexes pertain to
specific emergency functions, including evacuation, but also mass care
and communications, among others. DHS reported that emergency plans
lack a consistency of approach, depth of planning, or evidence of
safeguards and effective implementation. In addition, DHS reported that
few plans demonstrate the in-depth planning and proactive thinking
needed to meet the needs of these populations.
Some State and Local Governments Have Taken Steps to Address Evacuation
Preparedness Challenges and Related Barriers:
Although, in general, preparedness efforts to evacuate transportation-
disadvantaged populations are lacking, state and local governments have
taken steps to address challenges in identifying and locating these
populations, determining their evacuation needs, and providing for
their transportation. With regard to addressing the challenges of
identifying and locating transportation-disadvantaged populations, some
of the five major cities and four states we visited, as well as those
reviewed as part of the DHS and DOT reports, have taken the following
steps:
* Conducting surveys and studies: Officials in all five major cities
and one of the four states we visited told us that they have conducted
surveys or collaborated with academic institutions to locate
transportation-disadvantaged populations. For example, one major city
conducted a disaster preparedness survey of transportation-
disadvantaged populations. Another major city obtained survey data on
transportation-disadvantaged populations through collaboration with a
local university's school of public health. In a third major city,
emergency management officials have plans to collaborate with academics
to create simulations of evacuation scenarios. These scenarios would be
used for evacuation preparedness activities, such as calculating how
many buses would be needed and which routes to take for an evacuation.
* Collaborating with state and local entities: Two of the five major
cities we visited have identified, or plan to identify, transportation-
disadvantaged populations through faith-based or community outreach
programs such as Operation Brother's Keeper (a Red Cross program that
matches those with access to a personal vehicle to those in their
community without such access) and Neighborhood Watch (a crime-
prevention program). In another city, officials stated their intent to
use Citizen Corps (which brings community and government leaders
together to coordinate the involvement of community members and
nongovernmental resources in emergency preparedness and response and
whose volunteers are trained, exercised, and managed at the local
level) to help identify, locate, and evacuate transportation-
disadvantaged populations. One respondent to DHS's Nationwide Plan
Review stated that their jurisdiction is looking at developing
partnerships with nonprofit and local social service organizations and
community groups that deal with transportation-disadvantaged
populations in order to assist in identifying and locating these
populations. In addition, two of the five major cities we visited had
collaborated with their respective metropolitan planning organizations
to collect evacuation-related data, and officials in one state we
visited told us that cities and counties in their state need to better
coordinate with metropolitan planning organizations to identify
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Officials from all of the
five metropolitan planning organizations we visited (which are also DOT
grant recipients) told us that they had information that could be
useful in evacuation preparedness. Because these organizations are
required to conduct transportation planning as part of their federal
funding agreements, they acquire data on transit-dependent populations
that would be useful for emergency officials. Three of these
organizations showed us data and maps illustrating the location of
transportation-disadvantaged populations, but stated that emergency
management officials in their communities had not yet reached out to
them for information or assistance. The Association of Metropolitan
Planning Organizations told us that although their 385 member
organizations differ in capacity, many would be able to provide
assistance to emergency management officials in identifying and
locating transportation-disadvantaged populations.
* Mapping transportation-disadvantaged populations: DOT's evaluation of
evacuation plans in the 63 Gulf Coast jurisdictions found that just
over half (33) of those jurisdictions had identified certain
transportation-disadvantaged populations (hospitals, nursing homes, and
assisted care facilities) by geographic location. DHS's Nationwide Plan
Review found that some participants are employing modeling software to
determine the size and location of transportation- disadvantaged
populations. One of the five major cities we visited worked with
academics to use computerized mapping technology--known as geographic
information systems--to map the location of these populations. Another
major city of the five we visited is working with the state's
department of motor vehicles to create a computerized map of households
without personal vehicles.
With regard to determining the needs of these populations and providing
for transportation, state and local governments in some of the states
we visited (as well as governments reviewed in the DHS and DOT reports)
have taken the following steps:
* Involving state and local entities that are not traditionally
involved in emergency management as part of preparedness efforts: DHS's
Nationwide Plan Review stated that federal, state, and local
governments should increase the participation of persons with
disabilities and disability subject-matter experts in the development
and execution of plans, training, and exercises. Officials in two of
the five major cities we visited have involved social service agencies,
nonprofit or other organizations, and transportation providers--such as
schools for the blind and deaf, and paratransit providers for the
disabled--in emergency preparedness activities. Some of these state and
local entities are DOT grant recipients. Several emergency preparedness
experts with whom we spoke recommended involving, in evacuation
preparedness, state and local entities that represent or serve
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Such entities can assist
emergency management officials in efficiently determining the needs of
these populations.
* Coordinating with state and local entities that are not traditionally
involved in emergency management as part of preparedness efforts: DOT's
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation found that
approximately two-thirds (or 43) of the 63 Gulf Coast evacuation plans
included the use of public transit vehicles, school buses, and
paratransit vehicles. The Nationwide Plan Review states that a critical
but often overlooked component of the evacuation process is the
availability of timely, accessible transportation (especially lift-
equipped vehicles). In one of the five major cities we visited,
transportation-disadvantaged populations are evacuated using social
service transportation providers with ambulances, school buses, and
other vehicles including those with lift-equipment.[Footnote 30]
* Training state and local entities that are not traditionally involved
in emergency management as part of preparedness efforts: Officials at
two of the five major cities we visited have trained, or are planning
to train, social service agencies to coordinate and communicate with
emergency responders. One of the five major cities we visited found
that, during hurricanes, community-based organizations that serve the
elderly were operating on a limited basis or not at all. Therefore,
this city's government mandated that community-based organizations have
continuity of operations plans in place to increase their ability to
maintain essential services during a disaster. This city also provided
training and technical assistance to help organizations develop such
plans. In another major city, the paratransit providers that are DOT
grant recipients received emergency response training, and have
identification that informs law enforcement officials that these
providers are authorized to assist in emergency evacuations.
* Training emergency responders to operate multi-passenger vehicles:
Two of five major cities we visited are considering training police
officers and fire fighters to obtain a type of commercial driver's
license that would allow them to operate multi-passenger vehicles. This
would provide a greater number of available drivers and more
flexibility for evacuation assistance.
* Incorporating transportation-disadvantaged populations in exercises:
DHS recommended in its Nationwide Plan Review that jurisdictions
increase the participation of persons with disabilities and disability
subject-matter experts in training and exercises. Several experts we
interviewed also emphasized the importance of including transportation-
disadvantaged populations in exercises, and one explained that the
level of understanding of these populations' needs among emergency
management and public safety officials is very low. Three of the five
major cities we visited incorporate transportation-disadvantaged
populations into their evacuation exercises.
State and local governments in some of the states we visited, as well
as in those reviewed in the DHS and DOT reports, have taken steps to
address legal and social barriers that could prevent them from
successfully evacuating transportation-disadvantaged populations:
* Establishing memoranda of understanding and mutual aid agreements:
Memoranda of understanding are legal arrangements that allow
jurisdictions to borrow vehicles, drivers, or other resources in the
event of an emergency. Mutual aid agreements are contracts between
jurisdictions in which the jurisdictions agree to help each other by
providing resources to respond to an emergency. These agreements often
identify resources, coordination steps, and procedures to request and
employ potential resources, and may also address liability concerns.
DHS's Nationwide Plan Review reported that few emergency operations
plans considered the practical implementation of mutual aid, resource
management, and other logistical aspects of mutual aid requests. DHS
found that 23 percent of urban areas needed to augment or initiate
memoranda of understanding to improve their use of available modes of
transportation in evacuation planning. DOT's Catastrophic Hurricane
Evacuation Plan Evaluation report stated that Gulf Coast evacuation
plans have limited information addressing the use of mutual aid
agreements or memoranda of understanding with private motor coach
companies, paratransit providers, ambulance companies, railroad
companies, and air carriers. However, three of the five major cities we
visited have established formal arrangements, such as memoranda of
understanding and mutual aid agreements, with neighboring
jurisdictions.
* Establishing plans to evacuate and shelter pets: DHS's Nationwide
Plan Review found that 23 percent of 50 states and 9 percent of 75 of
the largest urban areas satisfactorily address evacuation, sheltering,
and care of pets and service animals at the same evacuation destination
as their owners. This is important not only to encourage the evacuation
of transportation-disadvantaged populations, but the evacuation of
those with personal vehicles as well. DOT's Catastrophic Hurricane
Evacuation Plan Evaluation found that about one-fifth (19 percent) of
63 Gulf Coast jurisdictions were prepared to evacuate and shelter pets
and service animals. One of the five major cities we visited worked
with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to arrange a
tracking and sheltering system for pets. Because officials at this
major city have encountered difficulties in providing shelter space for
pets and their owners together, they arranged for a pet shelter and
shuttle service for owners to care for their pets.
* Ensuring that evacuees can bring assistance devices or service
animals: Transportation-disadvantaged individuals may be unwilling or
unable to evacuate if they are unsure that they will be able to bring
assistance devices such as wheelchairs, life-support systems, and
communications equipment as well as service animals. DOT's Catastrophic
Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation found that only one-third (32
percent) of 63 Gulf Coast jurisdictions had made satisfactory
provisions for transporting these items along with evacuees.
* Providing extensive information about evacuations and sheltering: In
an effort to encourage citizens to evacuate, one of the five major
cities we visited provided detailed information about evacuation and
sheltering procedures. Despite extensive public education campaigns to
raise awareness about evacuations, in two of five major cities we
visited officials stated that some people will still choose not to
evacuate. In the officials' experience, when an evacuation vehicle
arrived at the homes of transportation-disadvantaged populations who
had registered for evacuation assistance, some refused to evacuate.
These individuals cited multiple reasons, such as disbelief in the
danger presented by the storm, discomfort in evacuating, and the
absence of a caregiver or necessary medication.
* Emphasizing self-preparedness: Officials from three of the five major
cities and two of the four states we visited emphasized citizen self-
preparedness, such as developing an evacuation preparedness kit that
includes medications, food, water and clothes.
While the Federal Government Provides Some Evacuation Assistance, Gaps
Remain:
Although the federal government has provided some assistance to state
and local governments in preparing for their evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations, gaps in this assistance
remains. For example, federal guidance provided to state and local
emergency officials does not address preparedness challenges and
barriers for transportation-disadvantaged populations. Gaps also exist
in the federal government's role in and responsibilities for providing
evacuation assistance when state and local governments are overwhelmed
in a catastrophic disaster. For example, the National Response Plan
does not clearly assign the lead, coordinating, and supporting agencies
to provide evacuation assistance or outline these agencies'
responsibilities. Reports by the White House and others suggest that
this lack of clarity slowed the federal response in evacuating disaster
victims, especially transportation-disadvantaged populations, during
Hurricane Katrina. Amendments to the Stafford Act in October 2006 have
further clarified that FEMA, within DHS, is the single federal agency
responsible for leading and coordinating evacuation assistance.
The Federal Government Provides Some Evacuation Preparedness Assistance
to State and Local Governments:
The federal government provides some assistance to state and local
governments in preparing for the evacuation of transportation-
disadvantaged populations by establishing requirements, funding, and
guidance and technical assistance for evacuation preparedness. Examples
include:
* Requirements: Federal law requires that local emergency planning
officials develop emergency plans, including an evacuation plan that
contains provisions for a precautionary evacuation and alternative
traffic routes.[Footnote 31] In any program that receives federal
funding, additional federal protections clearly exist for persons with
disabilities, who, depending on the nature of the disability,
potentially could be transportation-disadvantaged. An executive order
addresses emergency preparedness for persons with disabilities, and the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act requires
consideration of persons with disabilities. According to Executive
Order 13347, in the context of emergency preparedness, executive
departments and federal agencies must consider the unique needs of
their employees with disabilities and those persons with disabilities
whom the agency serves; encourage this consideration for those served
by state and local governments and others; and facilitate cooperation
among federal, state, local, and other governments in the
implementation of the portions of emergency plans relating to persons
with disabilities.[Footnote 32] Since October 2006, federal law now
requires federal agencies to develop operational plans that address, as
appropriate, support of state and local government in conducting mass
evacuations, including provisions for populations with special needs,
among others. Executive Order 13347 also created the Interagency
Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with
Disabilities to focus on disability issues in emergency preparedness.
Additionally, as noted by DHS, the Americans with Disabilities Act
requires state and urban areas to include accessibility for persons
with disabilities in their emergency preparedness process. Within DHS,
the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties reviews and assesses
civil rights and civil liberties abuse allegations. Other civil rights
laws might also apply to transportation-disadvantaged populations,
depending on how such populations are identified. Federal laws prohibit
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national
origin.[Footnote 33] National origin discrimination includes
discrimination on the basis of limited English proficiency, and states
and localities are required to take reasonable steps to ensure that
people with limited English proficiency have meaningful access to their
programs. Recipients of DHS grants are allowed to use a reasonable
portion of their funding to ensure that they are providing the
meaningful access required by law. DHS also has ongoing work to foster
a culture of preparedness and promote individual and community
preparedness, such as through information available as part of its
Ready.gov Website and Citizen Corps program. Changes in federal law
were enacted in October 2006 to further protect some transportation-
disadvantaged populations.[Footnote 34] These include:
* the establishment of a National Advisory Council to ensure effective
and ongoing coordination of federal preparedness, protection, response,
recovery, and mitigation for natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and
other man-made disasters, with a cross-section of members, including
representatives of individuals with disabilities and other populations
with special needs;
* the appointment of a Disability Coordinator to ensure that needs of
individuals with disabilities are being properly addressed in emergency
preparedness and disaster relief;
* the establishment of an exercise program to test the National
Response Plan, whereby the program must be designed to address the
unique requirements of populations with special needs and provide
assistance to state and local governments with the design,
implementation, and evaluation of exercises; and:
* a requirement that federal agencies develop operational plans to
respond effectively to disasters, which must address support of state
and local governments in conducting mass evacuations, including
transportation and provisions for populations with special needs.
* Funding: DHS grants are the primary federal vehicle for funding state
and local evacuation preparedness efforts, and these grants can be used
to plan evacuations for transportation-disadvantaged populations. DHS's
2006 Homeland Security Grant Program encourages state and local
governments to increase their emergency preparedness by focusing on a
subset of 37 target capabilities that DHS considers integral to
nationwide preparedness for all types of hazards. The state and local
governments choose which subset of those capabilities best fits their
preparedness needs. One of these target capabilities addresses
evacuations. If a state determines that it needs to plan for the
evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations, it can use
funds from its DHS grant for such planning activities. Changes in
federal law in October 2006 require states with mass evacuation plans
funded through Urban Area Security Initiative and Homeland Security
Grant Program grants to ědevelop procedures for informing the public of
evacuation plans before and during an evacuation, including individuals
with disabilities or other special needs, with limited English
proficiency, or who might otherwise have difficulty in obtaining such
information.î Under this section, FEMA can establish guidelines,
standards, or requirements for ensuring effective mass evacuation
planning for states and local governments if these governments choose
to apply for grant funding for a mass evacuation plan.[Footnote 35]
* Guidance and Technical Assistance: The federal government provides
evacuation preparedness guidance--including planning considerations,
studies, and lessons learned--for state and local governments. We found
that the primary source of such guidance for state and local officials
is FEMA's State and Local Guidance 101, which includes a section on
evacuation preparedness considerations. This guidance recommends
preparing to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged populations.
Additionally, DHS has a Lessons Learned Information Sharing online
portal for state and local emergency management and public safety
officials where the aforementioned federal guidance can be
found.[Footnote 36] The federal government also provides voluntary
technical evacuation assistance--such as planning consultants and
modeling software--to state and local officials. For example, FEMA, the
United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Weather Service
conduct hurricane evacuation studies from which they provide technical
assistance on several preparedness issues (such as analyses on storm
modeling, sheltering, and transportation) for state and local
officials. Another example is the evacuation liaison team--comprised of
FEMA, DOT, and the National Hurricane Center--that works with state and
local governments to coordinate interstate transportation during
hurricane evacuations.
The federal government has also undertaken several smaller efforts to
address evacuation preparedness for transportation-disadvantaged
populations. (See app. V.)
Despite Some Federal Assistance to State and Local Governments, Gaps
Remain in Evacuation Preparedness for Transportation-Disadvantaged
Populations:
Although the federal government provides some assistance to state and
local governments for preparing to evacuate transportation-
disadvantaged populations, gaps in this assistance remain, including
the following:
* Requirements: Until October 2006, while federal law required that
emergency plans include an evacuation plan, there was no specific
requirement that the evacuation plan address how to transport those who
could not self-evacuate. Federal law now requires that state and local
governments with mass evacuation plans incorporate special needs
populations into their plan. However, this requirement does not
necessarily ensure the incorporation of all transportation-
disadvantaged populations. This is because state and local governments
do not share a consistent definition of special needs populations. In
the course of our review, we found that state and local governments
interpreted the term in a much more narrow fashion that did not
encompass all transportation-disadvantaged populations, which are
important to evacuation preparedness. Third, even though civil rights
laws require that no person be excluded on the basis of age, sex, race,
color, religion, national origin, or disability, federal laws may not
provide protection for transportation-disadvantaged populations during
federally funded emergency preparedness efforts (including evacuation
planning) because some of these populations do not clearly fall into
one of these protected classes. For example, federal laws do not
require state and local governments to plan for the evacuation of
tourists or the homeless. In addition, although the Americans with
Disabilities Act requires state and urban areas to include
accessibility for persons with disabilities in their emergency
preparedness process, an April 2005 report from the National Council on
Disability found little evidence that DHS has encouraged state or local
grant recipients to incorporate disability and access issues into their
emergency preparedness efforts.[Footnote 37] Additionally, in four of
five major cities we visited, advocacy groups representing persons with
disabilities told us that persons with disabilities were often not
involved in, or could be better integrated into, emergency management
training and exercises. In addition, the National Council on Disability
and the Interagency Council on Emergency Preparedness for Individuals
with Disabilities are respectively working to strengthen relevant
legislation and ensure that federal agencies consider transportation-
disadvantaged populations in federally funded planning, training, and
exercises. For example, the National Council on Disability is
recommending that the Congress amend the Stafford Act to encourage
federal agencies to link a recipient's emergency preparedness grants to
compliance with civil rights laws. Similarly, the Interagency Council
on Emergency Preparedness for Individuals with Disabilities added
disability subject-matter experts to DHS's Nationwide Plan Review and
worked with DHS's Preparedness Directorate to add transportation-
disadvantaged components to Top Officials Four, a federal, state, and
local government training exercise held in June 2006 that involved
senior agency officials from across the federal government.
* Funding: While DHS's grant programs provide funding that can be
applied toward evacuation planning, training, and exercises for
transportation- disadvantaged populations (as affirmed by language in
the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006), only two of
the five major cities and none of the four states we visited requested
DHS grants for activities related to the evacuation of transportation-
disadvantaged populations. In addition, we could not determine the
amount of funds spent on evacuation planning nationwide because,
although DHS is in the process of developing a grant tracking system,
it does not currently know how much of its grant funds have been used
or are being used by state and local governments to prepare for the
evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations. Officials at
two of the five major cities and two of the four states we visited told
us that DHS's grant programs have a continued emphasis on funding the
procurement of equipment rather than planning, and on preparedness for
terrorist acts rather than on other disasters.[Footnote 38] For
example, an official from one of the four states we visited told us
that an evacuation preparedness activity was denied by DHS because it
did not closely intersect with terrorism preparedness, one of DHS's
grant requirements prior to fiscal year 2006.[Footnote 39] Therefore,
emergency management officials believe they were discouraged from using
DHS funding to plan for natural disasters, such as hurricanes. The
Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at DHS--responsible for
reviewing and assessing civil rights and civil liberties abuse
allegations and, as part of the Nationwide Plan Review, participating
in the assessment of persons with disabilities--is currently involved
in the grant-guidance development process for fiscal year 2007. DHS has
indicated that the office's involvement in the grant process is a
priority.
* Guidance and Technical Assistance: While acknowledging the need to
prepare for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations,
the most widely used FEMA guidance does not provide details about how
to plan, train, and conduct exercises for evacuating these populations
or how to overcome the challenges and barriers discussed earlier.
Officials from three of the five major cities we visited said that
additional guidance from DHS would assist their evacuation planning
efforts. Further, one-third of the respondents to a DHS Nationwide Plan
Review question on emergency planning for transportation-disadvantaged
populations requested additional guidance, lessons learned, and best
practices from DHS. DHS officials told us that they intend to release
new emergency preparedness planning guidance in early calendar year
2007. In addition, although DHS has an online portal--its Lessons
Learned Information Sharing portal--which includes the aforementioned
guidance and other emergency preparedness information, officials from
two of the five major cities and two of the four states we visited told
us that specific information is not easy to find, in part, because the
portal is difficult to navigate. Upon using the portal, we also found
this to be true.[Footnote 40] For example, the search results appeared
to be in no particular order and were not sorted by date or relevant
key terms, and searched terms were not highlighted or shown anywhere in
the abstracts of listed documents. In addition, some studies were not
available through the portal, including studies from some of the
experts with whom we have spoken and provided us with useful
information on evacuation preparedness for transportation-disadvantaged
populations. In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS officials
told us that they had improved the overall functionality of DHS's
Lessons Learned Information Sharing portal. We revisited the portal as
of December 7, 2006 and it appears to have improved some of its search
and organizational functions. We have found, however, that some of the
issues we previously identified still remain, including, when using the
portal's search function, no direct link to key evacuation preparedness
documents, such as DHS's Nationwide Plan Review Phase I and II reports.
Aside from the portal, federal evacuation studies of, and lessons
learned from, the chemical stockpile and radiological emergency
preparedness programs could also help state and local officials prepare
for these populations.[Footnote 41] Because chemical stockpile and
radiological emergency preparedness programs work with communities that
include transportation-disadvantaged populations, some of the studies
and lessons learned about these programs address evacuation challenges
for these populations. For example, a Department of Energy National
Laboratory study on emergency preparedness in Alabama includes
information on how to address the needs of transportation-disadvantaged
populations in evacuations. However, officials from the chemical
stockpile and radiological emergency preparedness programs told us that
DHS has not widely disseminated these studies and lessons learned or
made them easily available to state and local officials. The federal
government has provided technical assistance primarily focused on self-
evacuations. Therefore, while Louisiana and surrounding states received
technical assistance from FEMA, DOT, and the National Hurricane Center
to help manage evacuation traffic prior to Hurricane Katrina, federal
officials with whom we spoke were unaware of any similar technical
assistance provided for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged
populations and other populations. In preparation for the 2006
hurricane season, DHS officials reported to us that DHS, along with
DOT, provided some technical assistance to three Gulf Coast states on
evacuating persons with disabilities and those with function and
medical limitations.
Gaps Also Remain in Federal Agencies' Role and Responsibilities for
Providing Evacuation Assistance When State and Local Governments are
Overwhelmed:
Although the Stafford Act gives the federal government the authority to
assist state and local governments with an evacuation,[Footnote 42] we
found that the National Response Plan--the federal government's plan
for disaster response--does not clearly define the lead, coordinating,
and supporting agencies to provide evacuation assistance for
transportation-disadvantaged and other populations or outline these
agencies' responsibilities when state and local governments are
overwhelmed by a catastrophic disaster.[Footnote 43] In our
conversations with DHS officials prior to October 2006, officials did
not agree that FEMA (an agency within DHS) was the single federal
agency responsible for leading and coordinating evacuation assistance.
However, after amendments to the Stafford Act in October 2006, DHS
officials have agreed that this is DHS's responsibility.
The absence of designated lead, coordinating, and supporting agencies
to provide evacuation assistance in the National Response Plan was
evident in the federal response for New Orleans during Hurricane
Katrina. As both the White House Homeland Security Council report and
the Senate Government Affairs and Homeland Security Committee report
noted, the federal government was not prepared to evacuate
transportation-disadvantaged populations, and this severely complicated
and hampered the federal response. Specifically, the Senate report
stated that "the federal government played no role in providing
transportation for pre-landfall evacuation" prior to the disaster
despite federal officials' awareness that as many as 100,000 people in
New Orleans would lack the means to evacuate. The Senate report also
stated that DHS officials did not ask state and local officials about
the steps being taken to evacuate the 100,000 people without
transportation, whether they should deploy buses and drivers to the
area, or whether the federal government could help secure multimodal
transportation (e.g., buses, trains, and airlines) for the pre-landfall
evacuation.
The White House report stated that, as a result of actions not taken,
the federal government's evacuation response suffered after Hurricane
Katrina made landfall. For example, communication problems created
difficulty in providing buses and limited situational awareness
contributed to difficulties in guiding response efforts; the result was
poor coordination with state and local officials in receiving evacuees.
This contributed to delayed requests for vehicles and the delayed
arrival of vehicles to transport disaster victims, confusion over where
vehicles should be staged, where disaster victims would be picked up,
and where disaster victims should be taken. We found that there is no
entity under the National Response Plan that is responsible for
dispatch and control of such evacuation vehicles. Given the problems
experienced during the evacuation of New Orleans, the White House and
Senate reports concluded that the federal government must be prepared
to carry out mass evacuations when disasters overwhelm state and local
governments. To achieve that goal, the White House report recommended
that DOT be designated as the agency responsible for developing the
federal government's capability to carry out mass evacuations when
state and local governments are overwhelmed.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the federal government has taken
several steps to improve its ability to respond to a catastrophic
disaster and, for the 2006 hurricane season, provide additional
evacuation support to state and local governments. First, in May 2006,
DHS made several changes to the National Response Plan, including one
related to evacuations. Consistent with a previous recommendation we
made, DHS revised the catastrophic incident annex of the National
Response Plan to include disasters that may evolve or mature to
catastrophic magnitude (such as an approaching hurricane). Therefore,
in future disasters, if the federal government has time to assess the
requirements and plans, it will tailor its proactive federal response
and pre-positioning of assets, such as vehicles, to address the
specific situation. Second, for the 2006 hurricane season, DOT was
prepared to assist the Gulf Coast states of Alabama, Louisiana, and
Mississippi in providing evacuation assistance, clarified command and
control by identifying key federal contacts, and worked with the states
to finalize plans for pre-positioning of federal assets and commodities
in the region. In addition, a DOT official responsible for overseeing
DOT's emergency activities told us that, while the agency was providing
transportation services or technical assistance to some of the Gulf
Coast states for the 2006 hurricane season, it had not taken the role
of lead or coordinating federal agency responsible for providing
evacuation assistance. This official also stated that if additional
federal evacuation assistance beyond transportation services and
technical assistance are needed, DHS would need to delegate such
support to other agencies. Further, this official told us that DOT does
not yet have any specific plans to provide similar evacuation support
in catastrophic disasters after the 2006 hurricane season. Further,
because of the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina and the continuing
vulnerabilities of southeastern Louisiana, DOT, in cooperation with
DHS, has provided additional support to Louisiana. This additional
support included working with the state to identify those who could not
evacuate on their own; establishing an interagency transportation
management unit to coordinate the routing of buses; entering into
contracts to provide transportation by bus, rail, and air; and
providing transportation from state and local pre-established
collection points to shelters, rail sites, or air transportation sites.
DHS and DOT planned to assist Louisiana in evacuating the estimated
96,000 persons who could not evacuate by their own means if the state
orders an evacuation. Finally, amendments to the Stafford Act in
October 2006 have further clarified that FEMA, within DHS, is the
single federal agency responsible for leading and coordinating
evacuation assistance.[Footnote 44] DHS officials have since agreed
that this is DHS's responsibility.
However, despite these improvements, DHS has not yet clarified, in the
National Response Plan, the leading, coordinating, and supporting
federal agencies to provide evacuation assistance when state and local
governments are overwhelmed, and what their responsibilities are. In
commenting on a draft of this report, DHS told us that as part of its
National Response Plan review and revision process, DHS plans to
encompass several key revisions regarding evacuations, including
clarifying roles and responsibilities of federal agencies as well as
private sector and nongovernmental agencies.
Conclusions:
The experience of Hurricane Katrina illustrated that when state, local,
and federal governments are not well prepared to evacuate
transportation-disadvantaged populations during a disaster, thousands
of people may not have the ability to evacuate on their own and may be
left in extremely hazardous circumstances. While state and local
governments have primary responsibility for planning, training, and
conducting exercises for the evacuation of these populations, gaps in
federal assistance have hindered the ability of many state and local
governments to sufficiently prepare to address the complex challenges
and barriers of evacuating transportation-disadvantaged populations.
This includes the lack of any requirement to plan, train, and conduct
exercises for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged
populations as well as gaps in guidance and technical assistance, such
as problems with DHS's Lessons Learned Information Sharing online
portal. In addition, information that DOT grantees and stakeholders
have could be useful in evacuation preparedness efforts. It is
uncertain whether state and local governments will be better positioned
to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged populations in the future.
Furthermore, the experience of Hurricane Katrina reinforced the fact
that some disasters are likely to overwhelm the ability of state and
local governments to respond, and that the federal government needs to
be prepared in these instances to carry out an evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Because DHS has not yet
clarified in the National Response Plan the lead, coordinating, and
supporting federal agencies to provide evacuation support for other
transportation-disadvantaged populations nor outlined these agencies'
responsibilities, the federal government cannot ensure that it is
taking the necessary steps to prepare for evacuating such populations;
this could contribute to leaving behind of some of society's most
vulnerable populations in a future catastrophic disaster. The National
Response Plan review and revision process provides DHS with the
opportunity to clarify the lead, coordinating, and supporting agencies
to provide evacuation assistance and outline these agencies'
responsibilities in order to strengthen the federal government's
evacuation preparedness.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve federal, state, and local preparedness for the evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations, we are making three
recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security:
* Clarify, in the National Response Plan, that FEMA is the lead and
coordinating agency to provide evacuation assistance when state and
local governments are overwhelmed, and also clarify the supporting
federal agencies and their responsibilities.
* Require that, as part of its grant programs, all state and local
governments plan, train, and conduct exercises for the evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations.
* Improve technical assistance by (1) working with DOT to provide more
detailed guidance and technical assistance on how to plan, train, and
conduct exercises for evacuating transportation-disadvantaged
populations; and (2) continuing to improve the organization of and
search functions for its Lessons Learned Information Sharing online
portal to better facilitate access to information on evacuations of
transportation-disadvantaged for federal, state, and local officials.
In addition, to encourage state and local information sharing as part
of their evacuation preparedness for transportation-disadvantaged
populations, we are making one recommendation to the Secretary of
Transportation:
* Encourage DOT's grant recipients and stakeholders, through guidance
and outreach, to share information that would assist emergency
management and transportation officials in identifying and locating as
well as determining the evacuation needs of and providing
transportation for transportation-disadvantaged populations.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We received written comments on a draft of this report from DHS. (See
app. II). DHS also offered additional technical and clarifying comments
which we incorporated as appropriate. DHS's letter stated that the
draft adequately identified the pertinent issues that have troubled
state and local emergency management officials, and that it would
consider our recommendations. DHS's letter also stated that some
recommendations in our draft report have been partly implemented,
including improvements to the overall functionality of the lessons
learned information sharing portal. We revisited DHS's Lessons Learned
Information Sharing portal as of December 7, 2006 and it appears to
have improved some of its search and organizational functions. We have
found, however, that some of the issues we previously identified still
remain. Therefore, we revised our recommendation to reflect the need
for continued improvement of this portal.
DHS's letter raised concerns that our discussion of a single federal
agency to lead and coordinate evacuations reflected a misunderstanding
of the federal response process because, for large and complex
disasters, no single federal agency can provide the entire response
support required. We did not intend to suggest that a single federal
agency can provide such support for evacuation. Rather, we stated that
the lead, coordinating, and supporting federal agencies to provide
evacuation assistance when state and local governments are overwhelmed
were not clear in the National Response Plan. DHS's letter notes, in
contrast to an earlier discussion we had with DHS officials, that DHS
is the single agency responsible for leading and coordinating
evacuation support to the states, and that this responsibility was
emphasized by the amendments to the Stafford Act in October 2006. We
modified our draft as appropriate to reflect DHS's role in response to
these amendments, but we retained our recommendation related to this
issue because agency roles and responsibilities to provide evacuation
assistance still need to be clarified in the National Response Plan.
DHS's letter stated that many issues related to evacuations are being
considered in ongoing revisions to the National Response Plan,
including the roles and responsibilities of federal agencies as well as
and private sector and nongovernmental agencies. We are encouraged to
learn that these issues are part of the National Response Plan review
and revision process. DHS also commented that our draft report implied
that the events of Hurricane Katrina were a "typical occurrence." This
is not an accurate summary of our findings. Rather, our report
emphasizes that there has been a heightened awareness of evacuation
preparedness for transportation-disadvantaged populations as a result
of Hurricane Katrina, and that we and others remain concerned about the
level of preparedness among federal, state, and local governments.
We received oral comments on a draft of this report from DOT officials,
including the National Response Program Manager, Office of
Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response, Office of the
Secretary. DOT officials generally agreed with the information
contained in the report and stated they would consider our
recommendation. DOT officials offered additional technical and
clarifying comments which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees and
subcommittees with responsibilities for DHS and DOT. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. This report will be available
at no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Staff who made key contributions to this report
are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Katherine Siggerud:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Congressional Committees:
The Honorable Susan Collins:
Chairman:
The Honorable Joseph Lieberman:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable James Inhofe:
Chairman:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Richard Shelby:
Chairman:
The Honorable Paul Sarbanes:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Chairman:
The Honorable Henry Waxman:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Daniel Petri:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Highways, Transit, and Pipeline:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Bennie Thompson:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Homeland Security:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Our review focuses on the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged
populations. Because we issued a report in July 2006 on the evacuation
of hospitals and nursing homes, we did not include them in the scope of
this review.[Footnote 45]
To assess the challenges state and local governments face in evacuating
transportation-disadvantaged populations, we reviewed the Department of
Homeland Security's (DHS) Nationwide Plan Review and the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan
Evaluation. These reports describe many more states, urban areas,
counties, and parishes than we were able to visit, providing a broader
context to our findings. To assess the experience of transportation-
disadvantaged populations during Hurricane Katrina, we reviewed the
White House Report: Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina--Lessons
Learned; the House of Representatives' report, A Failure of Initiative:
Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the
Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina; the Senate report,
Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared; the DHS Inspector
General's report, A Performance Review of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's Disaster Management Activities in Response to
Hurricane Katrina; the National Organization on Disability's Report on
Special Needs Assessment for Katrina Evacuees Project; and the American
Highway Users Alliance Emergency Evacuation Report 2006. We also held a
panel organized in cooperation with, and held at, the National
Academies. The panelists are experts in the field of disaster housing
and were selected from a list of 20 provided by the National Academies.
We asked for a mix of academics and practioners with knowledge on
sheltering issues related to hurricanes Katrina and Rita as well as
previous disasters. These panelists were Pamela Dashiell (Holy Cross
Neighborhood Association), Buddy Grantham (Joint Hurricane Housing Task
Force), Robert Olshansky (University of Illinois), Jae Park
(Mississippi Governorís Office of Recovery and Renewal), Walter Peacock
(Texas A&M University), Lori Peek (Colorado State University), Brenda
Phillips (Oklahoma State University), and Debra Washington (Louisiana
Housing Finance Agency).
To identify challenges and barriers, we reviewed selected reports on
evacuations. Studies and papers from Argonne National Laboratory, the
National Consortium on the Coordination of Human Services
Transportation, and the Congressional Research Service contributed to
our identification of challenges to evacuating transportation-
disadvantaged populations. To obtain perspectives from officials
involved in preparing for the evacuation of these populations, we
reviewed the aforementioned federal reports. We also conducted
interviews with state and local emergency management, transit and
transportation, and public safety agency officials, as well as local
metropolitan planning and advocacy organizations at five major cities
and four state capitals: Buffalo and Albany, New York; Los Angeles and
Sacramento, California; Miami and Tallahassee, Florida; New Orleans and
Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and the District of Columbia. Because these
sites were selected as part of a non-probability sample, the results
cannot be generalized. We undertook site visits to these locations
between March 2006 and June 2006. In selecting these major cities, we
applied the following criteria: regional diversity; major city with a
population of over 250,000; high percentage of population without
personal vehicles; high or medium overall vulnerability to hazards;
high percent of total population who are elderly, low income, or have a
disability; and varied public transit ridership levels.
In making our site selections, we used data from the 2000 U.S. Census
on the percentage of occupied housing units with no vehicle available,
city populations aged 65 and older, civilian non-institutionalized
disabled persons aged five and older, and persons below the poverty
level. To determine overall vulnerability, we applied Dr. Susan
Cutter's "Overall Vulnerability Index" from her presentation
"Preparedness and Response: Learning from Natural Disasters" to DHS on
February 14, 2006. Dr. Cutter is a professor of geography at the
University of South Carolina, and is part of the National Consortium
for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, which is funded
by DHS. The Overall Vulnerability Index incorporates three indices
measuring social, environmental, and all-hazards vulnerability. The
social vulnerability index incorporates social demographic factors such
as race and income, but also includes factors such as distance from
hospitals. The environmental index includes the proximity of dangerous
facilities (such as chemical and nuclear plants) and the condition of
roadways, among other factors. The all-hazards vulnerability index
analyzed all disasters recorded in the last 60 years, and rated urban
areas for the frequency of hazards and the resulting financial impact.
Public transit ridership was taken from data in the Federal Transit
Administration's National Transit Database. We determined that all the
data we used were sufficiently reliable for use as criteria in our site
selection process.
To better understand issues related to emergency management and
evacuations, particularly of transportation-disadvantaged populations,
we interviewed several academics and experts who presented at the 2006
Transportation Research Board conference and the 2006 Working
Conference on Emergency Management and Individuals with Disabilities
and the Elderly; we also interviewed other academics and experts who
were recommended to us by officials, associations, organizations, and
others. These academics and experts were Madhu Beriwal (Innovative
Emergency Management); Susan Cutter (University of South Carolina);
Elizabeth Davis (EAD and Associates); Jay Goodwill and Amber Reep
(University of South Florida); John Renne (University of New Orleans);
William Metz and Edward Tanzman (Argonne National Laboratory); Brenda
Phillips (Oklahoma State University); Tom Sanchez (Virginia Tech); and
Kathleen Tierney (University of Colorado at Denver).
To determine what actions state and local governments have taken to
address challenges in evacuating transportation-disadvantaged
populations, we interviewed, at the four states and five major cities
we visited, state and local emergency management agency officials (who
prepare for and coordinate evacuations), transit and transportation
agency officials (who provide and manage transportation during
evacuations), and public safety (fire and police) agency officials (who
assist with transportation-disadvantaged populations during an
evacuation). We also interviewed advocacy organizations. Much of the
work that state and local governments are conducting to address these
challenges is ongoing.
In assessing how federal assistance has aided the state and local
governments we visited in addressing these challenges and what further
assistance the federal government is proposing, we reviewed the
Stafford Act; the Homeland Security Act of 2002; the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006; the National Response Plan
(including the Catastrophic Incident Annex and the Catastrophic
Incident Supplement); DHS's Nationwide Plan Review and DOT's
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation; and various studies
and reports on Hurricane Katrina such as those prepared by the White
House, House of Representatives, and Senate. We interviewed officials
from DHS, DOT, and DOD to obtain their perspective on the federal role
in evacuations. To obtain the perspective of federal agencies and
councils focused on issues specifically related to transportation-
disadvantaged populations, we interviewed representatives from the
Administration on Aging, the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council
on Access and Mobility, the Interagency Coordinating Council on
Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities, the National
Council on Disability, and the Interagency Council on Homelessness. We
also interviewed representatives from several national organizations
and associations to help evaluate how federal programs and policies on
evacuations have affected transportation-disadvantaged populations.
These organizations and associations include the National Organization
on Disability, the American Association of Retired Persons, the
American Public Transportation Association, the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and the Community Transportation
Association of America.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528:
December 7, 2006:
Ms. Katherine Siggerud:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Siggerud:
RE: Draft Report GAO-07-44, Transportation Disadvantaged Populations:
Actions Needed to Clarify Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness
for Evacuations (GAO Job Code 542081):
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft report referenced above. The
Government Accountability Office (GAO) makes three recommendations to
the Department designed to improve federal, state, and local
preparedness for the evacuation of transportation disadvantaged
populations. This important and complex issue is being addressed
through a number of DHS activities already underway (e.g., the National
Response Plan Review and Revision). Additionally, some of the
recommendations have already been partly implemented. For example,
actions to improve the overall functionality of the lessons learned
information sharing portal have been completed. Furthermore, many DHS
grant programs have administrative requirements that stress the
importance of focusing on special needs populations.
We will take all of the recommendations under advisement and determine
the feasibility of further implementation. Any additional concerns and
the status of implementing the recommendations will be addressed in our
response to appropriate Hill committees and the Office of Management
and Budget sixty days after release of the report pursuant to the
reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. Section 720.
The draft report adequately identifies the pertinent issues that have
troubled state and local emergency management officials for many years.
Hurricane Katrina and Rita made obvious what has been a chronic concern
for emergency management officials since Hurricane Elena in 1985, which
resulted in the largest peacetime evacuation in the history of this
nation at that time, with the movement of over 1.5 million residents
from their homes along the Florida Gulf Coast from Naples to Pensacola.
Major issues with the movement of special needs populations caused a
thorough review of this issue in the State of Florida and resulted in
numerous initiatives to identify such vulnerable populations and
regulatory requirements to address their needs.
Subsequent events have dwarfed this number of evacuees, as larger
hurricanes have threatened populations from Texas to Maine. The need to
determine how to identify, and actively evacuate all special needs
populations, to include those who are transportation dependent, has
been the cause of much concern. The draft does not adequately address
this matter, nor does it recognize the core aspect or problem with the
transportation of any special needs person--that is it is a local
responsibility. This is a critical point in that the overall solution
to this problem must occur at the local level through proper planning
and implementation. The local jurisdiction must take ownership of the
problem with state oversight.
As required in the implementation guidance of the NRP, the Secretary of
Homeland Security is conducting an interagency review to assess the
effectiveness of the NRP, identify improvements, recommend
modifications, and reissue the document. As the NRP is predicated on
the National Incident Management System (NIMS), DHS is conducting an
upgrade to the NIMS in conjunction with the NRP review. The modified
NIMS and NRP documents will be released in tandem.
The NRP/NIMS Review and Revision process is being conducted through a
NRP/NIMS Task Force co-chaired by FEMA and the Preparedness
Directorate, with participation from all levels of stakeholders to
include internal DHS components and other Federal, state, local,
tribal, territorial, non-governmental and private-sector partners.
Stakeholder meetings have been conducted to introduce the review
process and timelines, outline proposed key NRP and NIMS revision
issues identified through review of Hurricane Katrina After Action
Reports and other lessons learned documents, and solicit feedback on
the process, timelines, proposed issues and any other relevant topics.
The issue of evacuations is a complex one and encompasses several key
revision issues identified in the NRP/NIMS Review and Revision process,
including:
* clarification of roles and responsibilities of key structures,
positions and levels of the government and private sector as well as
other nongovernmental agencies;
* incorporation of companion animal emergency management issues;
* proactive planning for incidents that render state and local
governments incapable of an effective response; and:
* consideration of special needs populations in incident management
activities.
The NRP/NIMS Review and Revision process will include a key revision
issue and work group on evacuations and a special needs work group to
ensure that these issues are fully addressed.
The report raises the issue, beginning on page 11, that, ".the National
Response Plan does not assign a single federal agency the
responsibility for leading and coordinating evacuations of
transportation-disadvantaged populations (not including patients
needing hospital care) when state and local governments are
overwhelmed." This represents a misunderstanding of the federal
response process. The basic premise for the National Response Plan, and
the strategy that underlies it, is that for large and complex
disasters, no single federal agency can provide the entire response
support required. Instead, a coordinated inter-agency effort is
required. DHS is responsible for managing that interagency effort and
is, in fact, the single federal agency responsible for leading and
coordinating evacuation support to states. Implementation of the
recently enacted Stafford Act legislative changes will also help
address the Federal role in evacuation support and assistance in
relation to transportation of disadvantaged populations.
The draft report alludes to the need to identify "special needs
persons" and transportation dependent evacuees. This is crucial to
local and state emergency management personnel. The lack of definition
severely hampers the ability of emergency managers to plan for these
evacuees. This is evident in the GAO efforts to identify these
populations. There are many different components to special needs/
medical management procedures. They consist of pre-disaster special
needs registration, special needs shelter identification/operation,
medical management screening, medical management placement, and
discharge procedures for the shelters/ facilities. The definition of
transportation-disadvantaged populations has to be separated from
"special needs", "medical management", and "disabled individuals." To
include individuals with disabilities with evacuees whose only
deficiency is not having transportation, whether permanently or only in
an emergency, does a disservice to the disabled population.
The draft report does not recognize that evacuations of transportation-
dependent populations have successfully occurred during significant
events of the 2004/2005 hurricane season, with the help of intrastate/
interstate mutual aid agreements. In some cases, evacuations have been
almost routine (e.g., hospital evacuation in the Florida Keys by North
Carolina Air National Guard). The draft report implies that the
situation that occurred during Katrina was a typical occurrence. The
problems with Katrina were caused by the sheer scale of the event, by
conditions that contributed to not following recognized standard
evacuation procedures (e.g., HURREVAC Timelines), and by impediments or
failures to implement evacuations in a timely manner. The National
Response Plan provides a mechanism for the Federal government to
support local and state governments when they become overwhelmed.
Properly used by an integrated team, it can and has been very
successful. This was documented during the 2004-2005 hurricane season
in Florida when the Department of Health and Human Services was given
the mission to create a 5,000 bed special needs shelter in the Orange
County Civic Center. The NRP was not signed/approved until December 15,
2004. The federal response during the 2004 hurricane season was guided
by the Initial National Response Plan.
Technical comments will be provided under separate cover.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Steven J. Pecinovsky:
Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
The following are GAO's comment on the Department of Homeland's letter
dated December 7, 2006:
GAO Comments:
1. DHS commented that it partially implemented one of our
recommendations by improving the overall functionality of the lessons
learned information sharing portal. We revisited DHS's Lessons Learned
Information Sharing portal as of December 7, 2006 and it appears to
have improved some of its search and organizational functions. We have
found, however, that some of the issues we previously identified still
remain. For example, when using the portal's search function, there was
no direct link to key evacuation preparedness documents, such as to
DHS's Nationwide Plan Review reports. Therefore, we revised our
recommendation to reflect the need for continued improvement of this
portal.
2. DHS commented that grant programs have administrative requirements
that stress the importance of focusing on special needs populations.
These requirements, while encouraging, do not ensure that state and
local governments plan, train, and conduct exercises for the evacuation
of transportation-disadvantaged populations. During the course of our
review, we found that state and local officials do not share a
consistent definition of special needs and had interpreted the term in
a manner which does not encompass all transportation-disadvantaged
populations that should be included in evacuation preparedness. We
define transportation-disadvantaged populations to include individuals
who, by choice or other reasons, do not have access to a personal
vehicle. These can include persons with disabilities, low-income,
homeless, or transient persons; children without an adult present at
home, tourists and commuters who are frequent users of public
transportation; and those with limited English proficiency who tend to
rely on public transit more than English speakers.
3. DHS commented that our draft report did not adequately address the
need to determine how to identify, and actively evacuate all special
needs populations, including those who are transportation-
disadvantaged. We recognize, in our report, the difficulty that state
and local emergency management officials face in identifying and
locating transportation- disadvantaged populations, determining their
transportation needs, and providing for their transportation. Two of
our report's three sections address this very issue.
4. DHS commented that our draft report did not recognize that
transportation of special needs populations is primarily a local
responsibility. Our report recognizes this fact and clearly states that
state and local governments are primarily responsible for managing
responses to disasters, including the evacuation of transportation-
disadvantaged populations.
5. DHS commented that its National Response Plan Review and Revision
process is currently being conducted and that it will address
clarification of roles and responsibilities of key structures,
positions and levels of the government and private sector as well as
other nongovernmental agencies among other issues related to
evacuations. We are encouraged by DHS's efforts in this regard.
6. DHS commented for large and complex disasters, no single federal
agency can provide the entire response support required. We agree that
disaster response is a coordinated interagency effort, but believe that
clarification of the lead, coordinating, and supporting agencies for
evacuation support is needed in the National Response Plan to ensure a
successful response. DHS also commented that it is responsible for
managing that interagency effort and is, in fact, the single federal
agency responsible for leading and coordinating evacuation support to
states. Implementation of enacted Stafford Act legislative changes from
October 2006 will help address the federal role in providing evacuation
assistance for transportation of disadvantaged populations. We agree
that DHS, more specifically FEMA, is responsible for leading and
coordinating evacuation support to states.
7. DHS commented that our definition of transportation-disadvantaged
populations was a disservice to the disabled population. While we
recognize that evacuation is a complex issue and believe that persons
with disabilities are faced with significant evacuation challenges in
the event of a disaster and should be a focus of evacuation
preparedness, it is important that federal, state, and local government
emergency preparedness efforts address planning for all transportation-
disadvantaged populations.
8. DHS commented that our draft report implies that the situation that
occurred during Katrina was a "typical occurrence." It is not our
intent to imply this. However, the events of Hurricane Katrina raised
significant awareness about federal, state, and local preparedness to
evacuate transportation-disadvantaged populations, and reports, such as
DHS's Nationwide Plan Review and DOT's Catastrophic Hurricane
Evacuation Plan Evaluation, have further highlighted the need for
increased evacuation preparedness by these governments.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO's Observations on Federal Proposed Recommendations
and Initial Conclusions:
In 2006, the White House and several federal agencies released reports
that reviewed federal, state, and local evacuation preparedness and
response to Hurricane Katrina. Many of these reports include
recommendations or initial conclusions for federal, state, and local
governments. We have included a list of recommendations--including some
already referenced in our report--that address the evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Our observations about each
recommendation, based on our review, are also listed. (See table 1.)
Table 1: GAO's Observations on Federal Recommendations and Initial
Conclusions Addressing Evacuation Planning for Transportation-
Disadvantaged Populations:
Define "special needs" consistently.
Federal recommendation or initial conclusion:
* The federal government should develop a consistent definition of the
term "special needs."[A];
GAO observation: Select federal, state, and local officials had very
different definitions of special needs populations. Moreover, some
state and local officials did not have definitions that fully
encompassed all special needs populations among the transportation-
disadvantaged.
Encourage evacuation preparedness to address transportation-
disadvantaged populations.
Federal recommendation or initial conclusion:
* U.S. DOT should support state and local governments in planning,
training, and exercising evacuation plans and ensure that these plans
address the challenges posed by evacuating hospitals, nursing homes,
and individuals with special needs.[B];
GAO observation: In addition, DOT has specialized transportation
knowledge, and pre-existing relationships with state departments of
transportation, transit agencies, and contracted private transportation
providers. Therefore, DOT is well positioned in experience and
expertise to provide preparedness assistance to state and local
governments.
Federal recommendation or initial conclusion:
* DHS should support state and local governments in planning, training,
and exercising evacuation plans and ensure that these plans address the
challenges posed by evacuating hospitals, nursing homes, and
individuals with special needs.[B];
GAO observation: Several select locations have not fully developed
plans, training, and exercises to address evacuations of all segments
of the population. In addition, another study we conducted found
several challenges in evacuating hospitals and nursing homes.
Federal recommendation or initial conclusion:
* Federal, state, and local governments should increase the
participation of people with disabilities and disability subject-matter
experts in the development and execution of plans, training, and
exercises.[A];
GAO observation: In addition to persons with disabilities, in select
locations, we found that other transportation-disadvantaged
populations, such as the elderly and persons with limited English
proficiency, were not adequately considered in evacuation planning.
Federal recommendation or initial conclusion:
* All evacuation plans must provide for populations that do not have
the means to evacuate. DHS and DOT should make available assistance to
state and local governments for the development of these plans to
ensure that the nation's most vulnerable citizens are not left behind
in a disaster.[B];
GAO observation: A significant proportion of the population may require
evacuation assistance during an emergency and the focus of evacuation
planning at the federal, state, and local levels have primarily been
found on those who own cars.
Federal recommendation or initial conclusion:
* States with high-risk urban areas should develop multi-phased
evacuation plans that provide for the speediest evacuation of residents
most at risk, particularly those who lack the means to evacuate on
their own. Neighboring political entities should work together to
coordinate evacuation plans in advance, and state and local governments
should publicize their evacuation plans and ensure that citizens are
familiar with one or more evacuation options. States whose location
puts them at high risk of recurring hurricanes and tropical storms
should use updated storm surge estimates to establish evacuation zones
and evacuation clearance times. States whose locations put them at risk
of other types of natural disasters should evaluate those risks and
consider evacuation zones and clearance times in line with them[B];
GAO observation: One select state that faces frequent natural hazards
had developed detailed evacuation plans that provide timely evacuations
for transportation- disadvantaged populations. Often, high-risk
residents who need transportation assistance are evacuated first
because this assistance can be time consuming. In addition, within the
state, a major city communicates evacuation plans to citizens in a
number of ways (e.g., radio and TV, leaflets and mailings, and
community outreach efforts) to enhance individual preparedness during
emergencies.
Provide technical assistance for evacuation preparedness for
transportation- disadvantaged populations.
Federal recommendation or initial conclusion:
* The federal government should provide technical assistance to clarify
the extent to which emergency communications, including public
information associated with emergencies, must be in accessible formats
for persons with disabilities. This assistance should address all
aspects of communication, including, for example, televised and other
types of emergency notification and instructions, shelter announcement,
and applications and forms for government and private disaster
benefits.[A];
GAO observation: Select states and cities have experienced challenges
in communicating public information, both prior to and during
emergencies, to many populations among the transportation-
disadvantaged, including persons with disabilities, the elderly, and
persons with limited English proficiency.
Federal recommendation or initial conclusion:
* Federal, state, and local governments should work with the private
sector to identify and coordinate effective means of transporting
individuals with disabilities before, during, and after an
emergency.[A];
GAO observation: Private sector assets, such as buses and ambulance
services, along with public sector assets, can be used to provide
general and specialized transportation resources during disasters for
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Several social service
providers from select cities told us that emergency management
officials often do not consider these providers useful partners in the
planning process.
Clarify federal role regarding evacuations.
Federal recommendation or initial conclusion:
* Designate DOT as the primary agency responsible for developing the
federal government's capability to conduct mass evacuations when
disasters overwhelm state and local governments.[C];
GAO observation: In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, DOT plans to have a
more active role in providing transportation to state and local
governments for emergency evacuations. In 2006, DOT officials said
that, while DOT has not been officially designated under the National
Response Plan as the lead and coordinating agency for carrying out
evacuations when state and local governments are overwhelmed, it has
taken additional steps necessary to provide additional evacuation
capabilities.
Federal recommendation or initial conclusion:
* As the primary federal agency under Emergency Support Function-1
(Transportation), DOT, in coordination with DHS, should develop plans
to assist in conducting mass evacuations when an effective evacuation
is beyond the capabilities, or is likely to be beyond the capabilities,
of the state and affected local governments. DOT should develop plans
to quickly deploy transportation assets to an area in need of mass
evacuation. DHS should, in coordination with DOT, assist state and
affected local governments in evacuating populations when requested; in
coordination with the states, DOT should plan, train, and exercise for
evacuations, including evacuations of medical patients and others with
special needs. These evacuations would be conducted in coordination
with other relevant federal agencies, the American Red Cross, and state
and local partners. DOT should consider using a variety of
transportation modes, including air medical services. DOT should also
work with state and local emergency planners--in particular, state and
local agencies charged with Emergency Support Function-1
responsibilities--to help them (1) assess the resources needed to
assist with evacuations, which of these resources are locally
available, and what shortfalls exist; (2) determine unique
geographical/demographic obstacles to evacuation in particular areas;
and (3) develop catalogues of regionally available evacuation-related
assets, including transit agencies from various municipalities.
Establish liaisons with ESF-6 (mass care, housing, and human services)
to coordinate sheltering destinations for evacuees from various areas,
and work with ESF-13[(public safety and security) to ensure that air,
bus, and other transportation providers have appropriate security
escorts to ensure safety during evacuation activities.[B];
GAO observation: The National Response Plan does not clearly lay out
evacuation responsibilities among federal agencies. We found that
significant challenges exist in evacuating transportation-disadvantaged
populations. Therefore, an effective federal evacuation response may
require clarification of roles and responsibilities for the lead,
coordinating, and supporting federal agencies to provide evacuation
assistance for transportation- disadvantaged and other populations when
a disaster overwhelms state and local governments.
Better communicate information on, and incorporate analysis of, needs
for transportation- disadvantaged populations.
Federal recommendation or initial conclusion:
* State and local agencies should work with the special needs
communities to develop systems whereby those requiring specialized
transportation or sheltering services during evacuations can make these
needs known to emergency managers and operators of transportation and
sheltering services before evacuations.[D];
GAO observation: Social-service and other transportation providers--
both public and private sector--have distinct knowledge about their
customers, some of whom may have special needs. This knowledge includes
their physical location as well as their transportation and medical
needs. However, select local site visits revealed that emergency
management officials have often not worked with such providers to
enhance their ability to identify, locate, and transport special needs
populations during emergencies.
Federal recommendation or initial conclusion:
* The federal government should provide guidance to state and local
governments on the incorporation of disability-related demographic
analysis into emergency planning.[A];
GAO observation: Select locations have experienced challenges in
locating transportation-disadvantaged populations. However, in those
same communities, metropolitan planning organizations have already
carried out demographic analysis specific to transportation-
disadvantaged populations (including but not limited to persons with
disabilities) that can be helpful to emergency planners.
Source: GAO analysis of White House, Senate, DHS and DOT data.
[A] DHS, Nationwide Plan Review: Phase II Report (Washington, D.C.:
Jun. 16, 2006).
[B] Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee,
Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared (Washington, D.C.: May
2006).
[C] White House Homeland Security Council, The Federal Response to
Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2006).
[D] DOT in cooperation with DHS, Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan
Evaluation: A Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2006).
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Other Federal Initiatives Related to Evacuating
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations:
The following is a list of initiatives we identified during our review
that the federal government has undertaken to address the evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations.
* The Federal Transit Administration has awarded the American Public
Transportation Association a $300,000 grant to establish and administer
a transit mutual aid program. The goal of the program is to provide
immediate assistance to a community in need of emergency transit
services, with a focus on evacuation and business continuity support.
The American Public Transportation Association will obtain formal
commitments from willing transit agencies and, with committed
resources, develop and maintain a database of transit vehicles,
personnel, and equipment. The target for the database is to have
between 250 and 500 buses nationwide, as well as support equipment and
personnel, ready to respond at any time. Moreover, the American Public
Transportation Association will reach out to federal, state, and
regional agencies to ensure that during an emergency, these agencies
can provide a coordinated and effective response.
* The Community Transportation Association of America conducted an
expert panel discussion--sponsored by the National Consortium on the
Coordination of Human Services Transportation--on the role of public
and community transportation services during an emergency. The
resulting white paper (which outlines community strategies to evacuate
and challenges for transportation-disadvantaged populations during
emergencies) and emergency preparedness checklist is intended as
guidance for transportation providers and their partner organizations.
This panel was conducted in cooperation with the Federal Interagency
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, and DHS's Interagency
Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with
Disabilities.
* The Federal Transit Administration has awarded a grant to the
University of New Orleans to develop a manual and professional
development course for transit agencies to enhance their emergency
preparedness.
* The Federal Transit Administration, along with the Federal
Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, has created a
pamphlet entitled "Disaster Response and Recovery Resource for Transit
Agencies" to provide local transit agencies and transportation
providers with useful information and best practices in emergency
preparedness and disaster response and recovery. The resource provides
summary information for general background, and includes best practices
and links to more specific resources and more detailed information for
local agencies concerning critical disaster related elements such as
emergency preparedness, disaster response, and disaster recovery.
* The Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility--
which awards grants to states for human service transportation
coordination between state agencies--added an emergency preparedness
priority to its grant guidelines, thereby encouraging state to consider
emergency preparedness among its grant priorities. As of July 2006,
nine states have addressed emergency preparedness as a priority.
* The Federal Highway Administration is producing a series of primers
for state and local emergency managers and transportation officials to
aid them in developing evacuation plans for incidents that occur with
or without notice. A special primer is under development to aid state
and local officials in designing evacuation plans that include
transportation-disadvantaged populations. This primer will be released
no later than March 2007.
* The Transportation Research Board has convened a committee to examine
the role of public transportation in emergency evacuation. The
committee will evaluate the role that the public transportation systems
serving the 38 largest urbanized areas in the United States could play
in the evacuation of, egress, and ingress of people to or from critical
locations in times of emergency. The committee is expected to issue a
report by April 20, 2008.[Footnote 46]
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Katherine Siggerud, (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Steve Cohen, Assistant
Director; Ashley Alley; Elizabeth Eisenstadt; Colin Fallon; Deborah
Landis; Christopher Lyons; SaraAnn Moessbauer; Laina Poon; Tina Won
Sherman; and Alwynne Wilbur made key contributions to this report.
Related GAO Products:
Catastrophic Disasters: Enhanced Leadership, Capabilities, and
Accountability Will Improve the Effectiveness of the Nation's
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery System. GAO-06-618. Washington,
D.C.: September 6, 2006.
Disaster Preparedness: Limitations in Federal Evacuation Assistance for
Health Facilities Should Be Addressed. GAO-06-826. Washington, D.C.:
July 20, 2006.
Disaster Preparedness: Preliminary Observations on the Evacuation of
Vulnerable Populations due to Hurricanes and Other Disasters. GAO-06-
790T. Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2006.
Hurricane Katrina: GAO's Preliminary Observations Regarding
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. GAO-06-442T. Washington, D.C.:
March 8, 2006.
Disaster Preparedness: Preliminary Observations on the Evacuation of
Hospitals and Nursing Homes Due to Hurricanes. GAO-06-443R. Washington,
D.C.: February 16, 2006.
Statement by Comptroller General David M. Walker on GAO's Preliminary
Observations Regarding Preparedness and Response to Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita. GAO-06-365R. Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2006.
Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT's
Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English-Proficient
Populations. GAO-06-52. Washington, D.C.: November 2, 2005.
Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT's
Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English-Proficient
Populations (Chinese Edition). GAO-06-186. Washington, D.C.: November
2, 2005.
Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT's
Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English-Proficient
Populations (Korean Version). GAO-06-188. Washington, D.C.: November 2,
2005.
Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT's
Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English-Proficient
Populations (Spanish Version). GAO-06-185. Washington, D.C.: November
2, 2005.
Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT's
Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English-Proficient
Populations (Vietnamese Version). GAO-06-187. Washington, D.C.:
November 2, 2005.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Seniors: Efforts to Enhance Senior
Mobility Could Benefit from Additional Guidance and Information. GAO-
04-971. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2004.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Federal Agencies Are Taking
Steps to Assist States and Local Agencies in Coordinating
Transportation Services. GAO-04-420R. Washington, D.C.: February 24,
2004.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts
Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles
Persist. GAO-03-697. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Many Federal Programs Fund
Transportation Services, but Obstacles to Coordination Persist. GAO- 03-
698T. Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2003.
FOOTNOTES
[1] For the purposes of this report, we define evacuations as
"organized, phased, and supervised withdrawal, dispersal, or removal of
civilians from dangerous or potentially dangerous areas, and their
reception and care in safe areas."
[2] As we discuss in this report, transportation-disadvantaged
populations can include numerous categories of people without personal
vehicles, such as: the elderly and persons with disabilities who have
mobility impairments that preclude them from driving or who need
medical equipment in order to travel; low-income, homeless, or
transient persons who do not have a permanent residence or who do not
own or have access to a personal vehicle; children without an adult
present during a disaster; tourists and commuters who are frequent
users of public transportation; those with limited English proficiency
who tend to rely on public transit more than English speakers (see GAO,
Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT's
Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English-Proficient
Populations, GAO-06-52 [Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2, 2006]); or those who,
for any other reason, do not own or have access to a personal vehicle.
[3] Our previous studies have examined the ability of transportation-
disadvantaged populations to access public transportation for
employment opportunities, health and medical services, educational
services, and the community at large.
[4] Only those individuals age 21 and over are included in this
disability determination. Also, while there is some overlap among
transportation-disadvantaged populations--an elderly person with a
disability, for example--the numbers of these populations are still
large. In addition, it is unlikely that all of those who compromise the
aforementioned data would require transportation during an evacuation.
[5] For the purposes of this report, language regarding state and local
governments is inclusive of tribal governments.
[6] Letters sent by Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff to
the Governors of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi in July 2006.
[7] Such programs include the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities, Job Access and Reverse Commute, and New Freedom programs.
[8] White House Homeland Security Council, The Federal Response to
Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2006)
[9] Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee,
Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared (Washington, D.C.: May
2006).
[10] DHS, Nationwide Plan Review: Phase I Report (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 10, 2006). DHS, Nationwide Plan Review: Phase II Report
(Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2006).
[11] DOT in cooperation with DHS, Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation
Plan Evaluation: A Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2006).
[12] 31 U.S.C. § 717(b)(1)(2000).
[13] GAO, Disaster Preparedness: Preliminary Observations on the
Evacuation of Vulnerable Populations Due to Hurricanes and Other
Disasters, GAO06790T (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2006). Also see a list
of related GAO products at the end of this report.
[14] While the District of Columbia is neither a city nor a state, for
the purposes of this report, we refer to the District of Columbia as
one of the major cities we visited. We, therefore, did not visit a
respective state for the District of Columbia.
[15] GAO, Disaster Preparedness: Limitations in Federal Evacuation
Assistance for Health Facilities Should Be Addressed, GAO06826
(Washington, D.C.: Jul. 20, 2006). This report discusses evacuation
challenges faced by hospitals and nursing homes, such as in deciding
whether to evacuate, securing transportation, and maintaining
communications outside of their facilities.
[16] Title 42 U.S.C. § 11003(c)(7).
[17] National Council on Disability, Saving Lives: Including People
with Disabilities in Emergency Planning (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 15,
2005).
[18] See White House Homeland Security Council, The Federal Response to
Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned (Washington D.C.: Feb. 2006) and
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Hurricane
Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared (Washington, D.C.: May 2006).
[19] For fiscal year 2007, DOT's Elderly Individuals and Individuals
with Disabilities, Job Access and Reverse Commute, and New Freedom
programs require some grant recipients to develop a coordinated public
transit-human services transportation plan. FTA proposes that this plan
is to be a unified, comprehensive strategy for public transportation
service delivery that identifies the transportation needs of
individuals with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with
limited incomes; lays out strategies for meeting these needs; and
prioritizes services. All future projects for these programs are to be
derived from the local coordinated public transit-human services
transportation plans.
[20] We issued a report in July 2006 on the evacuation of health
facilities, including hospitals and nursing homes. As such, this report
does not address the evacuation of those who are under the care of
these health facilities. See GAO-06-826.
[21] See GAO-06-52.
[22] Medical needs may include care providers or equipment such as
wheelchairs and beds. Transportation needs may include accessible
vehicles such as those with chair lifts or low floors.
[23] See Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996,
Pub. L. No. 104-191 (August 24, 1996) and HHS Standards for Privacy of
Individually Identifiable Health Information, 45 C.F.R. parts 160 & 164
(2005).
[24] 45 C.F.R. § 165.104 (2005).
[25] Good Samaritan laws are enacted by states to protect health care
providers and other volunteer rescuers from being sued when they are
giving emergency medical help to a victim.
[26] We are planning to issue a report on disaster housing assistance
in February 2007.
[27] The GAO Expert Panel on Disaster Housing Assistance was conducted
in cooperation with and held at the National Academies in Washington,
D.C. on August 17, 2006.
[28] We are planning to issue a report on the Emergency Alert System,
one of several federally managed public warning systems, in March 2007.
The system does not currently require multilingual alerts and
accessibility for disabled persons.
[29] For the DHS Nationwide Plan Review, "sufficient" is the highest
rating that can be received. The other ratings DHS used to evaluate
plans were "partially sufficient" and "not sufficient."
[30] These social service transportation providers are funded in part
by DOT grants.
[31] Title 42 U.S.C. § 11003(c)(7).
[32] The President signed this executive order on July 22, 2004. In
January 2005, the Secretary of Homeland Security wrote a letter to all
state and territorial governors emphasizing their emergency
preparedness responsibilities to individuals with disabilities and
listed several steps that emergency planners should undertake in order
to ensure that their plans are as comprehensive as possible with regard
to the needs of their constituents with disabilities.
[33] See Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42.
U.S.C. 2000 et. seq; Rehabilitation Act of 1973 § 504, as amended, 29
U.S.C. 794; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended,
20 U.S.C. 1681 et. seq; The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended,
20 U.S.C. 6101 et. seq; and Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, Exec. Order
12898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 11, 1994).
[34] Pub. L. No. 109-294, § 508, 513, 648, 653 (Oct. 4, 2006).
[35] Pub. L. No. 109-294, § 512 (Oct. 4, 2006).
[36] DHS's Lessons Learned Portal can be accessed at www.llis.gov. The
portal states that it seeks to improve preparedness nationwide by
allowing local, state, and federal homeland security and response
professionals to access information on the most effective planning,
training, equipping, and operating practices for preventing, preparing
for, responding to, and recovering from acts of terrorism.
[37] National Council on Disability, Saving Lives: Including People
with Disabilities in Emergency Planning (Washington, DC: Apr. 15,
2005). DHS officials told us that they disagree with the conclusion of
the National Council on Disability's report.
[38] In addition, a previous GAO report indicates that officials from
four state and local governments believe DHS's grant process had too
much of an emphasis on terrorism-related activities. See GAO, Homeland
Security: DHS' Efforts to Enhance First Responders' All-Hazards
Capabilities Continue to Evolve, GAO-05-652 (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 11,
2005).
[39] As of fiscal year 2006, DHS's grant guidance allows for dual-use
of grants. The term ědual-useî refers to homeland security projects or
activities that are primarily for terrorism response, but could be used
in the event of a natural or technical disaster.
[40] According to DHS, our comments about the search engine and general
navigation of the system echo the results of a user survey that DHS
conducted in summer 2006.
[41] The Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program and the
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program are federal programs that
work closely with communities located near the nation's chemical
weapons stockpiles and radiological facilities.
[42] The Stafford Act gives the federal government the authority to
assist state and local governments in an evacuation with or without a
request from those governments. See Senate Homeland Security and
Government Affairs Committee, Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still
Unprepared (Washington, D.C.: May 2006).
[43] As we have previously reported, a single federal agency,
supporting agencies, and their roles and responsibilities for
evacuating patients needing hospital care is clear under the National
Response Plan. However, we also found limitations in how the federal
government provides assistance with the evacuations of health care
facilities when state and local governments are overwhelmed. We
recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security (1) clearly
delineate how the federal government will assist state and local
governments with the movement of patients and residents out of
hospitals and nursing homes to a mobilization center where National
Disaster Medical System (NDMS) transportation begins; and (2) in
consultation with the other NDMS partners, including the Secretaries of
Defense, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs, clearly
delineate how to address the needs of nursing home residents during
evacuations, including arrangements necessary to relocate these
residents. See GAO, Disaster Preparedness: Preliminary Observations on
the Evacuation of Vulnerable Populations due to Hurricanes and Other
Disasters, GAO06790T (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2006). Also see related
GAO products at the end of this report.
[44] Pub. L. No. 109-295, § 503, 504 (Oct. 4, 2006).
[45] Hospitals and nursing homes are subject to federal and state
requirements relating to evacuations and disaster plans. We found that
they also face challenges in evacuation, including deciding whether to
evacuate, securing transportation, and maintaining communications
outside of their facilities. See GAO, Disaster Preparedness:
Limitations in Federal Evacuation Assistance for Health Facilities
Should be Addressed, GAO06826 (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2006).
[46] The committee and report are mandated by the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,
Section 3046 (a)(1).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: